So do you have anything to add to the argument?Those are some stupid vets.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

And again you have nothing to add to the debate. What a surprise.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

I have added my comments on what I believe will come about if the mexicans continue to raise their countries flag above the US flag within the borders of our nation. They will continue to piss off vets, and other emotional supporters of the US Flag - and if the disobedience is allowed to go unobstructed, I guarantee riots and even deaths will occur over it, ridiculous as it will be....which is far more than you have added by persistently adjudging each poster for having nothing to add to the argument.

__________________

"We cannot continue to rely on our military .... We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Barack Obama

"My age group was pressured into joining although it was allegedly voluntary. But later on it was compulsory. No one could say no."
Hitler youth, Willi Demf, born 1920

I've added plenty, such as the reasons why such a law is unjust.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

Why dodge the question?

Are you doing anything to change a law that you don't think should be in place?

No, you're not.

You're just pissing and moaning about it on an internet forum...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

I didn't. I addressed it and told you it was off-topic. Dodging applies to questions that are on-topic. This thread is not about "what are you doing to change law x." Fact is, it wouldn't matter (for this debate) if I protested or wrote to Congressmen because 1) It would have no effect on the debate and 2) I wouldn't be able to prove it anyway.So why did you ask?I'm having an argument. You are trolling and posting off-topic bullshit, as usual.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

You said that you didn't think the law should be in place. Was that off topic? My question was a direct off-shoot of that. The only way my question could've been off topic is if your comment was off topic.

Which it was...

Nor is it about what laws you do or do not think should exist...

You said you didn't think the law should exist. I asked you why not. You dodged.

As for writing to a Congressman not making any difference, you're probably right. They rarely pay attention to those who aren't old enough to vote...

You're dodging a logical question, asked as the result of a statement you made. Making the statement, and then whining when someone asks you about it is immature.

Oh, and it's dodging to the nth degree...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

No.It has absolutely nothing to do with moving the thread forward. If you think it does, how would it do that? I see it as an attempt to troll.No.It deals with a law regarding an illegal Mexican flag [placement] (read topic title), and I gave my opinion about it.Nope, I specifically addressed why I think the law should not exist.

That doesn't make it on-topic, and thus it is not necessarily a dodge (it isn't a dodge in this case). "What kind of food do you like?" is a logical question and it could be asked as a result of someone's posting anything. That wouldn't make it on-topic in a thread discussing the Holocaust.I never mentioned anything about what I am doing to change laws.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

This happened in my own town, and this is the first I've heard of it. Also it's b.s. for the business owner to have claimed he didn't know about the law. This is what happens when the law is constantly not enforced.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Agreed...

Nor did your comment about your opinion of the law...

Of course you do. Anything said by anyone, that you don't like, is "trolling"...

Horseshit.

Your opinion of the law has no bearing on the topic at hand...

It deals with a law regarding an illegal Mexican flag [placement] (read topic title), and I gave my opinion about it.[/quote]

And your opinion was unecessary for the discussion to progress. An opinion about the situation as a whole would be one thing...

How would your opinion be necessary for the discussion to progress? Do you have such an inflated sense of ego that you believe the only way a conversation can move forward is if you interject your opinion of the law? Also, if you'd be so kind, please explain how the topic would have come to a screeching halt had you not expressed that opinion?

But it is a dodge.

You stated an opinion, and now you're running like a scared child when asked about that opinion...

Really? Because that sounds pretty fucking stupid.

If I say I think we should nuke the Bahamas, and you ask "What kind of food do you like?" would hardly be a logical question...

Of course, I didn't ask you what kind of food you like. I asked you something specific to a statement you made in this thread.

But run away, boy, run away...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Yes, it does, because if people agree that it is an unjust law, it would at least partially resolve the thread. How would my saying "I do" or "do not" protest/write congressmen letters resolve the thread?I don't like trolling.Really? How so? We are discussing a flag that was removed, and that it was illegal to hang it that way. Certainly debate of whether the law is legal or not is relevant, don't you think?[/quote]Right, and I discussed that law. How is that off-topic?That doesn't mean it was off-topic.And this would be another, relevant, thing.Because if people agree that it is an unjust law, they could agree that the veteran's actions to remove it were unjust.When people discuss a law, I would say opinion of the law is important. What else would they argue?It wouldn't have. All that is required is for two people to discuss something. Just because a third enters doesn't mean it is off-topic just because he wasn't absolutely required for the debate.Really? Nowhere did I discuss my protesting tactics.Yes, really. And so is your question of me.What is illogical about the question "What kind of food do you like?" Does food not exist? Or can food not be liked?Your question was off-topic, Steve. Deal with it. But tell me, how would my answering "I wrote to a congressman" or "did not write to a congressman" move the discussion forward?

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

Absolutely.

You seem to be one who's concerned with a thread being able to progress. That's laudable. I don't think it's an accurate description of you but, if it was, I'd applaud that.

You said you didn't think the law should be in place. That's fine, although it would certainly aid in the progression of the discussion if you could explain why you believe it shouldn't be in place. How is asking for clarification "trolling" or "off topic"?

If you want to discuss the legitimacy of a law, let's do it. But don't run away like a scared little boy when someone asks why you hold a particular opinion.

THAT'S trolling...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

I did. Once here:

Banning someone from writing on a flag that they own is violating their property rights. For instance, I can write on an expensive vase that I own. Why not a flag that I own?

And once here:

I despise it in this case because it clearly violates a much more important law (namely, property rights and perhaps free speech), and because I find it unjust.It's trolling because I have not only already given the clarification mutliple times, but I have already pointed it out to you in the past:

Veteran Removes Illegal Mexican Flag, May Be Charged

Asking me what I have done to change it is off-topic because personal protesting behavior is not the topic.
I'll keep that in mind. Not that I have done it, but thanks for the warning. Now, you try to pay attention and read English.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.