Let's not forget...

(d)The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

So all you idiots wearing flag shirts, pants, socks, hats, scarves, and underwear are disrespecting the flag and what it stands for, not being patriotic.

(g)The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

So the Blue lives matter flag with it's blue line is a total fuck you to the flag and all it represents, a sign of pure disrespect to the whole country, not a sign of patriotism.

Claiming ignorance is just more disrespect, it's a 10 second job to find and read the official flag code.

Where does the criticism of the religion end and its followers begin? Most Christians I know think the Crusades were a horrible idea, and don't inform their faith today. The pastor in the church I grew up in wrote off the entire old testament as a highly colored history, whose barbaric morality was replaced by the teachings of Jesus.

There are plenty of muslims where I live now. I see them at picnics, or walking around the neighborhood. The women hear scarves in their hair, but I never hear their husbands mistreat them, and they seem to enjoy all the freedoms of the western world just fine. Are we being fair to these people if we label them as following a hateful oppressive religion? I imagine a day i their mosque wouldn't sound that different than a day in a church in this part of the world.

I'm guessing purely from a forces standpoint that if you were stood up, you'd be a lot more likely to survive than if you were lying down, like the video says. Mainly because your internal organs and brain are about to be decelerating, and you want to minimise the deceleration as much as possible. Your extremities might get pulverised, but without the organs they're not much use anyway.

There's some historic example about a 1945 bomber crashing into the Empire State Building, severing the ropes and inducing free-fall, but the lift's ropes coiled up and cushioned the occupant's fall and they lived. I just looked it up, and apparently only several times has free fall ever happened, only killing one person. But apparently people die from falling in the shafts, mechanics caught in machinery and strangulation from scarves caught in doors.

What gets my goat is, most of the flag waiving zealots don't even familiarize themselves with the official 'rules' for displaying a flag. For instance, I see them wearing flag pants, shirts, socks, underwear, hats, scarves, etc. ALL of these are considered desecration and denigration of the symbol and are clearly not allowed. Neither is displaying a flag at night without proper lighting, or leaving it outside in the rain if it's not made for all weather flying (most aren't). Displaying a flag sticker mounted backwards on your car (a thing I see all the time) is really bad. There are many rules for properly displaying an American flag that most flag waivers ignore completely in their zeal to show how much they love the flag. Sometimes it's really hard to be proud to be an American.

>> ^PHJF:

Plural of roof is roofs, not rooves


While true, it is a strange and illogical part of the language as it stands today. We pretty much pluralize every other word ending in "fs" to "ves". Dwarf/dwarves, staff/staves, scarf/scarves, life/lives, hoof/hooves, half/halves, calf/calves, and on and on. It's easier to enunciate this way. If enough people agree and use rooves, it will eventually be legitimized by dictionaries.

Unfortunately I'd have to agree with Sepacor, this is more of a PR event than real, effective training... I mean if they're going to train in uniform at least use the scarves for choke holds :-P

...why am I watching this? I hate scarves, always feel like I'm getting suffocated.

I'm glad to know that this information is here. But I found myself skeeved out by the fussiness of getting the scarf EXACTLY RIGHT. I lasted 52 seconds before I had to stop watching.

I have low tolerance for fashion.

But it is winter time. I am wearing scarves again for warmth. I think I'll work my way through these different choices over the next few weeks.

One tie at a time. But to watch it all at once? I can't. I just can't.

This started out interesting and just got funnier. Scarves. Many different colors.

>> ^gwiz665:

Scarves... I got one. I'm OLD!


Old Greg?..!

Scarves... I got one. I'm OLD!

A sweater, a nice nylon/polyester windbreaker, some t-shirts, socks (a large package from mom, a nice pair from my 5 YO son), a scarf (@thegrimsleeper I know, who wears scarves?), and other odds and ends.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well - profanity aside - I agree with the statement that the overriding issue here is one of free speech. If a group pays the money and wants to buy a billboard then that's their right. As long as the billboard isn't profane and doesn't display graphic images then it is no skin off my nose.
That being said - I find a large degree of irony here. Aren't atheists always the ones saying that there shouldn't be public displays of belief - and that anything that even HINTS at a person's belief system is 'insensitive' and 'inappropriate'? And aren't religious groups the ones who are always saying that they should be able to have access to public displays? Seems to me that both groups are being pretty hypocritical.


To be precise, it's a public display of disbelief.

And religious folks are always happy to complain loudly and vehemently about any public displays of belief that isn't borne of their chosen system. Christians complaining about Muslim women wearing head-scarves, for example.

The true irony is that I'm agreeing with you about something.

>> ^Offsajdh:
Way too nice and unworn shoes for a "real" homeless dude. The outfit matches the groove though. Excellent stuff.


This is not necessarily always a correct assumption; homeless people in big cities often get clothing donated to various shelters--the nicer the area the nicer the clothes. I saw homeless people in New York with Burberry (or knock-off) scarves, wearing Pumas and Nike track pants.

He does seem to be doing fine for himself though: http://www.myspace.com/edmunddunbar

>> ^rottenseed:
I bet those scarves are hiding some pretty bad-ass moustaches.


That comment made me think of Super Troopers

and smile.