Today on Blogcritics
Home » Burning The Flag That Symbolizes The Freedom To Burn The Flag

Burning The Flag That Symbolizes The Freedom To Burn The Flag

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The "flag burning" controversy has been a hotly debated issue of election-year political opportunism since the Supreme Court's 1989 decision, in Texas vs. Johnson, that burning the American flag is constitutionally protected free speech.

On June 27, 2006, a proposed constitutional amendment banning the desecration of the flag was narrowly defeated in the Senate, 66-34, one vote shy of the two-thirds, or 67 votes, required to send it to the states for ratification.

The last time the full Senate voted on it, in 2000, the measure came up four votes short. The amendment cleared the House, 286-130, last year.

The Flag Protection Amendment, S.J. Res. 12, which was sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

The Flag Protection Amendment, had it passed, would not have directly prohibited the desecration of the flag. It would have required that Congress enact legislation defining the terms "flag" and "desecration" while also empowering that body with the option of imposing penalties upon the violators of any subsequent policies made against flag desecration.

The Confounding Circumlocution of a Constitutional Non-Conundrum

Flag burning is a phony paradox issue that stirs and exploits the passions of patriots while inspiring jingoistic hypocrisy that is often rationalized in emotional appeals to American sentiment and vanity.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who calls the flag "a vibrant symbol of our democracy, our shared values, our commitment to justice, and our eternal memory of those who have sacrificed to defend these principles," in a June 16, 2006 USA Today editorial, writes:

Some opponents of the Flag Protection Amendment argue that we must choose between trampling on the flag and trampling on the First Amendment. I strongly disagree.

There is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner. This Amendment would leave both the flag and free speech safe.

Senator Feinstein's point that ideas can be expressed just as well in other ways that don't involve burning the flag seems reasonable when taken at its face value. (After all, flag burning is not a terribly effective way to win friends and influence people because it tends to close minds and harden hearts against whatever idea or cause is being demonstrated in that manner.)

However, a slight scratching of its surface reveals that carefully constructed rhetoric as a thin facade acting as a pretense for the limitation of the expression of political ideas that are often just as unpopular as the act of burning the flag.

In democracy, all ideas are equally worthy of expression, regardless of their popularity, which is one of the essential values we share as we work toward fulfilling our commitment to justice.

Principles mean nothing when they are rationalized away the moment they sting our sensibilities (and perhaps our pride, too) and become politically, or otherwise, uncomfortable or inconvenient to keep.

Those who made sacrifices for our freedom did so to defend our actual principles, not the decorative symbols we use to represent them. A flag is nothing but a piece of cloth. No matter how many are burned, for whatever reasons, our principles, and our commitment to them, will remain.

The choice between trampling on the flag or the First Amendment should not be much of a dilemma in light of the fact that the First Amendment protects the right to trample upon the flag and that nothing less than a constitutional amendment is required to restrict that right.

We cannot have it both ways. By making the flag “safe," this "Flag Protection Amendment" – as well as the precedents it would set – would, by default, endanger our First Amendment right to the free expression of ideas.

The people of a free country have the right to do and say all sorts of awful things that might be considered offensive in polite society, as long as they do not violate anybody else's rights in doing so.

Like it or not, this is the way that it is and has to be because a "right" to limit unpopular speech, or the free expression thereof, that is an affront to the sensibilities of civilized society, but is not also a violation of the rights of the people, does not and cannot exist.

Powered by

About Margaret Romao Toigo

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/8790577 Kold

    I think, therefore, I am.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I agree with you Margaret…

    but I still think there should be an amendment protecting the rights of those that want to beat the crap out of someone who burns the flag!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    well then, i guess my factory making flag toilet paper and flag rolling papers might be in jeapordy!!!

    how about this one…they pass a law stating that all flags must be made of non-burning material?

    just some Thoughts

    cuz the whole wasting of time in the Senate on this one is a transparent Rovian ploy to pander to the base with another hopeless bit of chicanery

    this one goes with the “marriage amendment” and all the other red meat the GOP leadership can toss to the base

    bah

    how about they ..oh i dunno…actually work on solving some problems? who knows, that might even get them some votes!!

    silly of me, i know

    but i can Dream, can’t i?

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, Karl Rove does not run the world. He also doesn’t run the US Senate.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    now who is being naive?

    if one doesn’t admit the basic fact that the top political strategist in the US is running the overall GOP campaign strategy to further his quoted goal of ” a permanent republican majority” and that the underling type strategists are not following their Machiavelli to the letter…then one is simply not observing the verifiable facts coming from within the GOP circles themselves

    even seom sitting Senators have admitted who is calling the political plays…and denial ain’t just a river in egypt

    Excelsior?

  • Nancy

    Obviously Dave has never seen Frist wagging his tail every time Rove’s name is mentioned.

  • http://theendofdave.com Dave

    If you can’t burn a peace of cloth, just how free are you really?

    But should anyone be passing laws which seems to be of national urgency (ie the most important bill ever to pass) on this when, as Colbert noted last night (in his own twisted way) that they could be rebuilding NOLA.

  • http://lowether.blogspot.com Sam Jack

    I’m baffled that so many of our nations representatives could be so stupid. If I wasn’t disillusioned before, I am now. Do the American people actually support this? I need to look up an opinion poll.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    ummm…Sam…fuck the opinion polls

    this is NOT about opinions, but about the Rights of individuals, and if that was left up to polls the folks in Salem woudl still be burning people on a slow sunday afternoon and then asking some people with higher melanin content in their skin to go and fetch lunch…

    that’s why we are a Republic based on the Rule of Law as delineated by our Constitution, and not the mob rule of a pure democracy where polls would determine everything

    just a Thought

    Excelsior?

  • Dan

    Forms of offensive hate speech are already banned. So this ship has already sailed. It’s just a matter of picking and choosing what’s offensive and/or hateful.

  • Clavos

    Forms of offensive hate speech are already banned.

    They are? Isn’t that precisely what the ACLU so vigorously and continuously fights to protect?

    It’s just a matter of picking and choosing what’s offensive and/or hateful.

    According to whom? Who does the “picking and choosing?”

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Forms of offensive hate speech are already banned.

    Let’s have one example, please. The truth is that all attempts to limit free speech that have held up in the courts limit the circumstances under which the speech can be used, not the actual words or statements.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    ‘By making the flag “safe,” this “Flag Protection Amendment” — as well as the precedents it would set — would, by default, endanger our First Amendment right to the free expression of ideas.’

    No, it wouldn’t. Amendments don’t set precedents. The amendment wouldn’t threaten anything, because it specifically states the one case to which it applies. For example, prohibition didn’t endanger morphine use, and repealing prohibition didn’t legalize marijuana use.

    ‘Karl Rove’

    The current debate over flag burning dates back to the late 1980’s, when the Supreme Court recognized it as protected speech. I’m unaware of any Rove connection.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    timing Baronius, timing…with November fast approaching, only the best mastermind is setting the overall Agenda for a permanent Republican majority (Karl’s self professed goal)

    now, follow the morning memo and talking points, no one is hiding where they come from

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Baronius, precedents can be set by just about anything, such as amending the Constitution to restrict freedom and rights, instead of expanding them.

    In the 215 years since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, our Constitution has only been amended 17 times. Of those 17 amendments, only the 18th Amendment restricted freedom and rights.

    Although it was repealed after only 13 years — the “Noble Experiment” proved that nature finds a way with regard to the laws of supply and demand, too — the 18th Amendment continues to maintain the precedents it set with regard to the legislation of human behaviors that do not violate the rights of the people.

    Indeed, the flag burning amendment was introduced after the Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Texas vs. Johnson. Karl Rove, being a most astute political strategist, is just taking advantage of any and all issues that will fire up the GOP’s socially conservative base, who are still stinging from the decisive defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment earlier this month.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com mschannon

    This is a typical Republican non-issue designed to appeal to their conservative base. I wish I had the source, but guess how many flags are burned each year?

    About 4.

    We’re talking about an epidemic here of American-hating, flag burning, radicals who won’t be satisfied until they can burn 5 or 6 a year.

    Give me a break. This topic isn’t even worth of discussion.

  • MCH

    Margaret;

    You were a stripper? Interesting. With all due respect to the profession, your intellect and way with words gives me a whole new perspective on exotic dancers.

    And I whole-heartedly disagree with your “not a real writer” comment; you have 10 times the skill as some of these BC egomaniacs, and 20 times more than yours truly.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    I only worked in that particular field for a brief time, MCH. It was more of a way to pay the rent when I was between jobs than it was a career.

    You know how some people like to “puff up” their resumes, bios, and such? Mine BC bio is sort of the opposite of that.

    The “real writer” bit is an inside joke. A certain real writer, whom I know quite well, says that writers write because of a calling to do so, not necessarily because they’re any good at it.

    I don’t have “the calling,” even if I might have a small talent for stringing words together to form somewhat coherent sentences.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    I am definetly not a real proofreader…

  • MCH

    “You know how some people like to “puff up” their resumes, bios, and such?”

    I hear ya, Margaret. Here’s one of my favorites:

    “I have worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer, a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and a history professor. Because my superior intellect is unmatched worldwide, if you don’t agree with me, you’re either a moron or a dumbass, or both. If you could buy me for what I’m worth, and sell me for what I think I’m worth, you could easily retire on the profit. My next project is a cure for cancer.”

  • Baronius

    Margaret, I meant legal precedent, not social precedent. In the eyes of the law, there is no underlying sweep of history. There is applicable law. Judges determine what law applies, and such determinations become precedents for that court and all courts beneath it.

    The highest law is the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot overturn a constitutional provision. If this amendment were passed and eventually added to the Constitution, it would apply only to cases of flag desecration. Any other form/act of speech would be covered by the First Amendment. The specificity of the flag-burning amendment would prevent it from impacting any other area of law.

  • http://bonamassablog.us Joan Hunt

    Margaret, this was very nicely stated and I agree with you. America is strong enough to withstand burnt cloth.

    I’d like to think that those who maintain their right to burn the flag will understand and respect my right to wave the flag I hold. Sometimes waving it under their very noses. Sure, it may offend them, but it’s my choice as to what I want to do with it.

    More often than not, those who accuse others of interfering with their First Amendment rights are the ones who seek to silence all others. By allowing them to continue burning a bit of fabric, they can no longer claim to be oppressed.

  • Arch Conservative

    Gonzo…………..the people suspected of witchcraft in Salem, MA werenot burned…..they were hanged…. and one was crushed to death with stones….it was the europeans who burned witches in the 1500 and 1600’s

    As for burning the flag….it would seem hypocritical not to allow people to do it andd say that the very flag represents our freedoms. Although I do believe it is in very bad taste and it does raise the question………

    if an American citizen burns the American flag are the rest of us still not allowed to say that person hates America or that they are un-American? Will the usual suspects still rush to thier defense claiming that they love this country and their burning of the flag is justa form of patriotic dissent?

  • Arch Conservative

    Oh and I forgot to mention that in the state of Massachusetts it is illegal to burn the Mexican flag. I think if we’re allowed to burn our own flag we should be allowed to burn any other nation’s flag.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    Arch..thanks for the info…shall we switch it to burning the Cathars?

    i was making a point, i see it was taken..and i stand corrected on my factual innaccuracy

    as for defending and such

    yep…i’ll defend your right to call people what ya like, and defend my right to wipe my ass with flag toilet paper if i so desire

    that whole pesky Liberty thing

    one cannot “desecrate” that which is not “sacred” and NO secular symbol of government is “sacred” by definition (see “seperation of church and state”)

    so it really a bullshit, red meat political stunt orchestrated to try and rally the GOP base

    bur some sheeple will fall for it, just like they did with the also bullshit “marriage amendment”

    now..my Question to all those who favor the GOP side is this…

    isn’t there much MORE important shit for the senate and congress to be doing than this pure politica, campaign grandstanding?

    like..balancing the budget, dealing with a rising insurgency in Afghanistan, Iraq..N. Korea missiles and nukes, Iranian nuclear development…or even properly investigating Abramhoff anf cronies including the whole K street project bit?

    how about the SCOTUS saying it’s OK to gerrymander Districts between Census takings?

    i could list more, but it won’t matter… nothign will be done for the People, and everythign will be pushed for GOP re-election agenda

    at least we know that they really don’t give a shit about the Nation, just about them getting re-elected so they can grap more pork and feed deeply at the public trough

    Excelsior?

  • Clavos

    gonzo…

    one cannot “desecrate” that which is not “sacred” and NO secular symbol of government is “sacred” by definition

    desecrate

    * (v. t.) To divest of a sacred character or office; to divert from a sacred purpose; to violate the sanctity of; to profane; to put to an unworthy use; — the opposite of consecrate.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    exactly Clavos..one must place ” a sacred character” upon something, which cannot be done in a secular sense…

    “to profane” also implies a sacredness, not available to secular institutions

    and “to put to an unworth use” woudl be open to Interpertations…

    to wit: if someone considers it their Duty to speak out against somethign the Administration is doing, and chooses to burn a flag as a demonstation of said Dissent…then their burning of said flag is being put to a WORTHY use…even while others who are observing may not agree

    and check out the word “consecrate” and tell em if you can find a secular use for such

    each and all of the terms you use in your definition revolve aroudn the Concept of “sacred” which as i stated have NO place in secular discusssions

    and our flag is most definately a secular symbol, by definition

    my appreciation for the discourse

    Excelsior?

  • Clavos

    my appreciation for the discourse

    You’re welcome.

    Don’t misunderstand me, gonzo, I’m not against burning the flag, I just think that to make it worthy it should be wrapped around a politician first.

  • Clavos

    gonzo…

    Or, if you prefer, we could start with a psychiatrist or two…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    how about both!!!

    just a Thought

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Bill Frist is a doctor AND a politician. Could we start with him?

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Let’s start with that fucking cunt Hillary. It would take 3 or four flags to cover her fat ass but it would be worht it.

    I’m bringing the marshmallows………who’s coming?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    MCH, I have nothing against anybody here. Sure, there is plenty of disagreement and a fair amount of vanity and ego to go along with it, but this would be terribly boring place were it not for the intellectual (and even emotional) challenges that are often present in such an atmosphere.

    Baronius, I was careful not to use the “legal” modifier as it narrows the meaning of “precedent.”

    It isn’t just the precedent of outlawing flag burning that should be of concern, but the very notion of amending the Constitution for the purpose of restricting freedom and rights that have already been or could someday be recognized by the judiciary.

    Ms. Hunt, I prefer to think of how the First Amendment recognizes our right to express positive ideas, like waving the flag right under the noses of those people who would rather burn it, but without the negative, there can be no positive.

    Arch Conservative writes, “it would seem hypocritical not to allow people to do it and say that the very flag represents our freedoms. Although I do believe it is in very bad taste and it does raise the question………”

    Indeed, it would be hypocritical.

    The First Amendment most decidedly recognizes that the rest of us have the right to say that flag burners hate America and that that they are un-American. And fortunately, there are many more Americans who fall on that side than the other.

    Even if “the usual suspects still rush to [the flag burners’] defense claiming that they love this country and their burning of the flag is just a form of patriotic dissent,” we still have that right, as well as the right to say the same things about those who would defend the flag burners.

    Free speech and expression is for everyone, whether it is in good taste or not.

    I couldn’t find anything about it being illegal to burn the Mexican flag in Massachusetts, but I did find this April 12, 2006 story from Tucson, Arizona:

    A Tucson man was arrested Tuesday for his role in the burning of a Mexican flag as part of a counterprotest at a pro-immigration rally.

    At about 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, Tucson police cited Roy Warden, 58, on suspicion of assault, criminal damage and reckless burning, and then released him, according to Sgt. Decio Hopffer.

    Apparently, Mr. Warden was not just exercising his First Amendment right to burn the Mexican flag, he violated other people’s rights when he did so recklessly and subsequently caused damage to property.

  • Arch Conservative

    Margaret writes”

    “Even if “the usual suspects still rush to [the flag burners’] defense claiming that they love this country and their burning of the flag is just a form of patriotic dissent,” we still have that right, as well as the right to say the same things about those who would defend the flag burners.”

    It’s not a question of free speech MArgaret it’s a question of what people who would burnthe flag really are….. Are they patriotic Americans using the burning of the flag to express legitimate dissent? Of course they’re not…………They’re anti Ameican pieces of shit that live in this nation a nd recieve all the benefits it has to offer while bashing it at every turn.

    I have seen several news stories in the past few days about these losers that intend to burn the flag on the 4th of July. If I personally see anyone burning the flag in front of me while I’m celebrating our nation’s birthday I will personally take the flag away from the person doing it and if they try to stop me I will rip thier tye dye or che t shirt off of them and strangle them with it..

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    well Arch..just for you, c’mon up to Maine!!

    i’ll burn a whole shitload of flags and W effigys, just for you

    i would dearly love to see the results

    and remember, many times have i stated that i DO love my Nation, i have served it voluntarily, and i do NOT equate the Nation with the Administration(which i would be protesting) OR a piece of cloth

    so please, c’mon by…yer only a state away…

    i’d love to see the rationale for assaulting me on my own property as i express my free speech on an inamimate object i legally purchased

    could be Fun

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    People who burn the flag are one-percenters, sick and twisted individuals who appear to be laboring under the delusion that they’re going to win people over to their causes by offending their sensibilities.

    99% of Americans are going to be flying our flag proudly on the Fourth of July, even those who may have strong disagreements with the policies and actions of our current government.

    So let the one-percenters burn their flags, not only because they have a right to do so, but because that act will expose them for the un-American losers they are.

    And remember, the right to burn the flag does not include some “right” to not be criticized and condemned for doing so.

  • DazeyMai

    I guess one could say “Congress fiddles while Baghdad burns”.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    well Margaret, we have finally found one point in which we disagree…
    you say…
    *sick and twisted individuals who appear to be laboring under the delusion that they’re going to win people over to their causes by offending their sensibilities.*

    might i suggest that not all people who express themselves in this fashion fall into either the sic or twisted category…altho i am fairly certain many do indeed fall into one or the other descriptions…

    as for “un-American losers”..there again, i take exception

    public protests of any kind are completely and of the essence of being American…no one needs to agree with what is being protested, nor the manner in which said protest is being accomplished…

    but to do so IS an American value

    as for “loser” that appears to be a subjective judgement not based on objective facts or observations…

    now, if you will excuse me..this damn thing is tough to keep lit

    Excelsior?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Bingy says:
    it’s a question of what people who would burnthe flag really are….. Are they patriotic Americans using the burning of the flag to express legitimate dissent? Of course they’re not…………They’re anti Ameican pieces of shit that live in this nation a nd recieve all the benefits it has to offer while bashing it at every turn.

    As is their right.

    Margaret says:
    People who burn the flag are one-percenters, sick and twisted individuals who appear to be laboring under the delusion that they’re going to win people over to their causes by offending their sensibilities.

    Exactly correct. I can personally only think of one situation in which I would burn the flag: if a constitutional amendment against doing so were passed. And I would do it not out of hatred for the country, just as a means of civil disobedience of an unjust law.

  • RogerMDillon

    “99% of Americans are going to be flying our flag proudly on the Fourth of July,”

    did you mean to say “99% of Americans who fly the flag, do so proudly,” because I have lived in many locations across the country and have yet to be in a city or town on the 4th where that percentile of Americans flew flags.

  • troll

    I plan to proudly fly our flag on the fourth…upside down…again

    troll

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    You caught me in an unintentional absolute, gonzo.

    This leaves me no option but to admit my misstatement and concede that not even one-percenters should be generalized in that manner. Indeed, some of them might not be as sick and twisted as their actions suggest.

    Of course, protesting is an American value, as are the subjective evaluations of protesters, what they are protesting, and how.

    Burning the flag that symbolizes the freedom to burn the flag seems to me to be a most un-American way to engage in the very American activity of protest — the one possible exception to this being, as Mr. West suggested in #39, burning the flag to protest ratification of the flag burning amendment.

    The logic is circular, to be sure, but such is the nature of the sometimes conflicting emotions of patriotism — like loving the idea that people have the freedom to burn the flag while hating the actual practice.

    I see flag burners as “losers” because they apparently don’t have any better ideas and are far more likely to lose, rather than gain, support through their actions.

    RogerMDillon, you are correct. I should have written that, “99% of Americans who fly the flag, do so proudly.”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    Margaret…no worries..

    and Arch…why bother troll for a distress signal? and what about me?

    i was pondering doing an actual Article on this…but there is no better place than on a Margaret Thread…

    got news for yas kiddies, Citizenship in America is an advanced class, this is nto some simple plebian shit here, but the big leagues for grown-ups only

    you want freedom of speech…no problem, but then you have to be able to stand there and defend it, not just when it’s easy..but when the other person is saying shit you consider so vile that you woudl spend your entire Life arguing against what he’s saying…

    you want Liberty? fine..but that also means being able to defend the way other folks choose to use their Liberty, even when you are vehemently opposed to those kids having two daddies or two mommies..or whatever

    this is advanced shit for the best and the brightest…you can see it every day

    there are those who you may disagree with, but you have to admit that at least they are trying to solve problems…then there are those that are trying to sell you something

    that something is just Fear…you see, it is much easier, and simpler politics for some folks to, rather than try and solv problems, to instead try and make you afraid of something that’s different and to blame some hapless minority for all your problems

    hence the bullshit flag burning crap and the “get the queers” marriage amendment bullshit and the like

    you notice some talking head trying to sell you Fear, or laying the blame on some broad brush sterotype that they loathe and deride (liberals are mentally ill) and you have just found yourself a dyed in the wool, large mouthed , small minded, lying sack of shit, con man who will never do anything to solve any real problem

    but he will always tell you what to Fear, and who to Blame

    nuff said…

    Excelsior?

  • Mohjho

    We can have a three strikes flag burning law.
    3 convictions, life without parole for political dissension, at guitmo.
    Actually its kind of sad and embarrassing to watch our politicals argue this ridiculous law while the rest of the US watches with frustration at all the real work that needs to get done in Washington.

  • troll

    Bing – as you will and feel free to expand on your theme…explain the testosterone rush

    I consider my protest both meaningful and respectful

    you on the other hand can take your parody of patriotism off my bridge

    troll

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Amen Mohjho, everyone needs to look at just how little substantive work this republican congress had done, aside from kissing the asses of the religious right in order to gain favor and mass votes this november

    I get the feeling they’re con-gress instead of pro-gress
    Solus mei sententia
    Jet

  • MCH

    “Let’s start with that fucking cunt Hillary. It would take 3 or four flags to cover her fat ass but it would be worht it.”
    – Archie

    …speaking of intellectual challenges…

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Stupid is as stupid does

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    aAAarRRRrrrgGGGgghHHHhhh….

    here i go and get semi-serious, kick some Wisdom and drop some Knowledge…and what do i find fer a follow up? (not counting troll’s most excellent trollism..it’s been a while since he kicked anyone off his bridge)

    what do i find?

    comedians!

    blargh…

    i get no Respect…no Respect i tell ya…i was talking to my doctor, you know him…Doctor Vinnie Boombatze…..

    but i digress…

    {8^P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    still waiting fer Arch ta come on up and roast some marshmellows on these flags…

    Excelsior?