PDA

View Full Version : Liberal non-sense.



imported_WILDJOKER5
03-13-2014, 06:08 PM
Ok, I would let this go if the boy was asked to cover the guns dipicted on the shirt, but the words "2nd Amendment Shall not be Infringed" was what the vice principle considered "incite or encourage 'violent activities'". This is stupidity in the fullests. How can liberal public schools adhere so strickly to the fiction of "seperation of God and state" being in the constitution, but claim its their right to restrict freedom of speech and promotion of the second amendment? This boy said he had worn this shirt and several like it all year, how many times had this school been shot up as a result of his shirt? Politically correct is different than being correct.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/new-york-high-school-suspended-for-nra-pro-2nd-amendment-t-shirt/?intcmp=latestnews

Capt Alfredo
03-14-2014, 01:31 AM
Ok, I would let this go if the boy was asked to cover the guns dipicted on the shirt, but the words "2nd Amendment Shall not be Infringed" was what the vice principle considered "incite or encourage 'violent activities'". This is stupidity in the fullests. How can liberal public schools adhere so strickly to the fiction of "seperation of God and state" being in the constitution, but claim its their right to restrict freedom of speech and promotion of the second amendment? This boy said he had worn this shirt and several like it all year, how many times had this school been shot up as a result of his shirt? Politically correct is different than being correct.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/new-york-high-school-suspended-for-nra-pro-2nd-amendment-t-shirt/?intcmp=latestnews

The kid was trying to start a ruckus and the school fell for it, thus stirring up the "Assault on our Freedoms" crowd.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 02:03 AM
The kid was trying to start a ruckus and the school fell for it, thus stirring up the "Assault on our Freedoms" crowd.

The elephant is back on the coffee table.

If his shirt touted the 14th amendment do you think they would have asked him to turn it inside out?

garhkal
03-14-2014, 03:24 AM
Heck, they would most likely have made him a star for that!

imnohero
03-14-2014, 09:48 AM
So, let's see...after reading the article, the kid had knowing and repeatedly violated the school dress code, had previously complied with requests to correct his violations, and this time decided he wouldn't. This isn't about the 2nd amendment or the NRA or "liberal schools"...it's about a teenager being a brat.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 10:31 AM
So, let's see...after reading the article, the kid had knowing and repeatedly violated the school dress code, had previously complied with requests to correct his violations, and this time decided he wouldn't. This isn't about the 2nd amendment or the NRA or "liberal schools"...it's about a teenager being a brat.

Actually, you're right. It's not about the 2nd...it's about the 1st. I'm pretty sure the 1st protects people's right to be an annoying brat, as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

imnohero
03-14-2014, 10:41 AM
blah blah blah... not everything is a "constitutional rights" issue.

Stalwart
03-14-2014, 11:14 AM
I don't necessarily have a problem with banning the shirt -- schools can choose to be 'gun free zones' and prohibit the possession or representation / images of a gun on campus.

What does bother me is the reason the school cited for asking him to remove or cover the shirt: "Officials at the school cited the dress code which prohibits any clothing that might incite or encourage “violent activities.”

Yes, there are images of rifles on the shirt which if they cited the imagery that would be sufficient; however saying that the message of the shirt (pro-2d Amendment wording on the shirt) is inciting violence is a bit much.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 01:31 PM
It's a tough issue to really apply the "Second Amendment" or any other amendment for that matter. Part of the probelem is the very nature of the "Public School System". Is it "government" or isn't it? Would we extend "free speech" to include having our very young kids forcibly exposed to extreme material (say pornographic or extremely violent content) or should we give the schools (especially via a PTA) some leeway in controlling what they are exposed to in the hallways? Me personally I think the issue is that we even have what's known as "public schools" in the fashion that we have them. If our system allowed for more "school choice" we wouldn't have this problem to the extent that we do. If you want to send your kid to a grammar school that would have them proficient in six forms of weapons and three martial art forms, that would be your option. If you wanted to send your kid to school that prohibits even pointing your fingers in the shape of a gun, that would also be your option. The system we have right now would pretty much force you to pay effectively for both even while your children are only attending one of the two.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 01:45 PM
blah, blah, blah Not everything IS a constitutional rights issue. But some are political issues and that is what is wrong here. It wasn't the muskets pictured on the back of the shirt that caused the decision to ban the shirt. It was an unpopular political position. Unpopular with a particular segment of society. The wording in their dress code is so ambivalent they could choose next Monday to ban the color green. The silly thing is that they end up accomplishing exactly what they claim to be attempting to stop...................publicity for the issue and polarization of the population. This all sounds familiar doesn't it?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 02:15 PM
The kid was trying to start a ruckus and the school fell for it, thus stirring up the "Assault on our Freedoms" crowd.

How did he start a ruckus? The only one that got but hurt was the vice principle, the person that should have the most self control in the school.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 02:15 PM
So, let's see...after reading the article, the kid had knowing and repeatedly violated the school dress code, had previously complied with requests to correct his violations, and this time decided he wouldn't. This isn't about the 2nd amendment or the NRA or "liberal schools"...it's about a teenager being a brat.

It wasnt against the dress code, as stated in the article.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 02:20 PM
There is no evidence that anyone in the story is a liberal.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 02:22 PM
How can a public school hide behind "seperation of church and state" when its is never in the constitution, but then say it has the right to ban anything that is a conservative platform issue? Talk about God in school? Banned. Talk about guns? Banned. Talk American flags? Banned. Talk about being pro abortion or pro free condoms and hand out day after pill? Perfectly acceptable.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 02:25 PM
There is no evidence that anyone in the story is a liberal.

Although you are right, lets go off impericle evidence? Happened in liberal NY state. Happened in liberal public school system. Happened AGAINST conservative issue. So although it doesnt say that the VP is a liberal, or the school policies are formed by liberals, lets call this a "George Zimmerman" case and just call it what we think it is until proven otherwise?

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 02:26 PM
Although you are right, lets go off impericle evidence? Happened in liberal NY state. Happened in liberal public school system. Happened AGAINST conservative issue. So although it doesnt say that the VP is a liberal, or the school policies are formed by liberals, lets call this a "George Zimmerman" case and just call it what we think it is until proven otherwise?

Conservative part of a very large state. Grand Island is in the 27th Congressional District...represented by Chris Collins, Republican

There is nothing liberal about a policy against political expression.

The principal, who upheld the suspension, is also an NRA member.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 02:26 PM
There is no evidence that anyone in the story is a liberal.

No, but if you were a betting man..............where would your money be? I am glad to see you agree that this was about politics and not violence.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 02:36 PM
No, but if you were a betting man..............where would your money be? I am glad to see you agree that this was about politics and not violence.

I don't know what it was about...tend to agree with other posters, it was about a smart ass sophomore.

I don't think there was anything violent about that shirt...but then again, we don't know what may have been going on around that school. Why do you think an NRA member would agree to suspend a kid wearing an NRA shirt?

I am a betting man. If the VP calls himself a liberal, he might be a Liberal In Name Only. As I said, there is nothing liberal about stopping/preventing/banning political expression.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 02:47 PM
I am a betting man. If the VP calls himself a liberal, he might be a Liberal In Name Only. As I said, there is nothing liberal about stopping/preventing/banning political expression.

Thank you, bears repitition!

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 02:52 PM
I don't know what it was about...tend to agree with other posters, it was about a smart ass sophomore.

I don't think there was anything violent about that shirt...but then again, we don't know what may have been going on around that school. Why do you think an NRA member would agree to suspend a kid wearing an NRA shirt?

I am a betting man. If the VP calls himself a liberal, he might be a Liberal In Name Only. As I said, there is nothing liberal about stopping/preventing/banning political expression.


But liberals do and/or attempt to stop/prevent/ban political expression every day (as do conservatives). You aren't suggesting that every such attempt is the work of a conservative are you?

(Seems AJ is saying that)

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 03:00 PM
But liberals do and/or attempt to stop/prevent/ban political expression every day (as do conservatives). You aren't suggesting that every such attempt is the work of a conservative are you?

(Seems AJ is saying that)

I am saying "liberal" by its base philosophy is not inherently statist, although modern "Progressivism" is seeming to lean that way. Milton Friedman is commonly known to have referred to himself as a "Classical liberal", anyone who knows anything about him would never refer to him as a statist.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 03:04 PM
But liberals do and/or attempt to stop/prevent/ban political expression every day (as do conservatives). You aren't suggesting that every such attempt is the work of a conservative are you?

(Seems AJ is saying that)

No I wouldn't say every such attempt is the work of a "conservative" person.

People that call themselves liberals might do that...but they are not acting as a liberal. Many murders and rapes are committed by Christians, this doesn't mean murder and rape is a Christian practice.

So, just like conservatives may argue over who is the "true" conservative, some might argue over who is a "true" liberal. Now, there is a possibility that there is a lot more to this story, like this kid being a smart ass, or passive aggressive about something they just had an assembly on or something...but, banning political speech is not a liberal thing to do.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 03:39 PM
I think we are conveniently getting wrapped up in the semantics of the words liberal and conservative. I think we all are smart enough to know that WJ's definition of a liberal is a democrat just like many on the MTF believe that a conservative equals a republican. I suppose it is a common enough stereotype to warrant some truth but let's not muddy the waters with arcane discussions of political philosophy. His labeling of the matter as liberal nonsense was completely unrelated to these semantics.

I can't say for sure what the motivation of the school official's were anymore than I can label the kid a smart ass. I do believe it was an overreaction and by that overreaction became a national issue.

This is a bit of deja vu for me because I asked a question in my first post here and it wasn't answered. Let me rephrase the question to make it a bit more palatable. What if he had worn a shirt supporting an ERA Constitutional amendment? Do you think the school would have made him tape over the words?

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 03:51 PM
I think we are conveniently getting wrapped up in the semantics of the words liberal and conservative. I think we all are smart enough to know that WJ's definition of a liberal is a democrat just like many on the MTF believe that a conservative equals a republican. I suppose it is a common enough stereotype to warrant some truth but let's not muddy the waters with arcane discussions of political philosophy. His labeling of the matter as liberal nonsense was completely unrelated to these semantics.

Perhaps...there is no evidence the guy was a Democrat either. I summarily reject his assumption that the school leadership was either liberal or Democrat. The only real evidence we have as to their political implication is that they live in a Republican district, where a high school sophomore holds a part time job in a gun store, and the principal is an NRA member.


I can't say for sure what the motivation of the school official's were anymore than I can label the kid a smart ass. I do believe it was an overreaction and by that overreaction became a national issue.

Perhaps. Nor can we say anything about the political leanings of the school leadership simply because of the supposed issue at hand. All comments from the school seem to indicate it wasn't the political position, but more of an insubordination issue.


This is a bit of deja vu for me because I asked a question in my first post here and it wasn't answered. Let me rephrase the question to make it a bit more palatable. What if he had worn a shirt supporting an ERA Constitutional amendment? Do you think the school would have made him tape over the words?

Probably not...I think guns and schools get a lot of people irrationally nervous, and that's what this is about. Just based on what we see here, I'd venture to guess the VP was somewhat unreasonable in his request...the kid purposely defied him...and that's what led to the suspension. Could have happened if the kid didn't see any reason to throw out his gum, because gum does not cause anyone any harm and does not stick underneath the desks unless the person does it. So, gum is not the problem. I still don't think there is any reason to believe the VP is a liberal.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 03:52 PM
I am saying "liberal" by its base philosophy is not inherently statist, although modern "Progressivism" is seeming to lean that way. Milton Friedman is commonly known to have referred to himself as a "Classical liberal", anyone who knows anything about him would never refer to him as a statist.

Progressives have always been statists, thats why they stopped using that term early 1900s till Hillary brought it back out not to long ago. Classic liberal is used by a lot of libertarians who try to take back the hijacked term, liberal but dont want to be associated with todays liberal progressives. Terms and phrases have been misused for a long time now, liberal or progressive being two major ones that have no semblence to what their names actually imply. You can't be "progressive" when you want to bring government to the point it was pre-French revolution. The US was founded by liberals, who professed freedoms liberally to the individual. Was it perfect in the begining? No. But the size of government has only been growing as more and more people prefer to have their everyday decissions determined by someone else instead of taking responsibility for their own actions. Here in lies the problem with this story, the VP didnt want to deal with someone else actually causing violence of their own accord, but punish a student who wasnt causing any violence or even advocating violence and as he was precieved as a "weak" target before when he would comply, this time he stood up for himself and the VP got butt hurt because a student didnt listen to his authoritarian rule.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 03:54 PM
I think we are conveniently getting wrapped up in the semantics of the words liberal and conservative. I think we all are smart enough to know that WJ's definition of a liberal is a democrat just like many on the MTF believe that a conservative equals a republican. I suppose it is a common enough stereotype to warrant some truth but let's not muddy the waters with arcane discussions of political philosophy. His labeling of the matter as liberal nonsense was completely unrelated to these semantics.

I can't say for sure what the motivation of the school official's were anymore than I can label the kid a smart ass. I do believe it was an overreaction and by that overreaction became a national issue.

This is a bit of deja vu for me because I asked a question in my first post here and it wasn't answered. Let me rephrase the question to make it a bit more palatable. What if he had worn a shirt supporting an ERA Constitutional amendment? Do you think the school would have made him tape over the words?

Hard to speculate, unfortunately all we're doing is speculating about the intentions of the VP. I would say we have no real means to determine that in this instance. It could be his position about it was that, maybe due to sensitivities about Connecticut or whatever, it was liable to cause a ruckus at the school and it was the schools policy to take measures to avoid it. The instant I see anything attached to Fox News I pretty much expect the language to be written in a way to hyperbolize the situation for an agenda until facts prove otherwise.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 03:58 PM
I think we are conveniently getting wrapped up in the semantics of the words liberal and conservative. I think we all are smart enough to know that WJ's definition of a liberal is a democrat just like many on the MTF believe that a conservative equals a republican. I suppose it is a common enough stereotype to warrant some truth but let's not muddy the waters with arcane discussions of political philosophy. His labeling of the matter as liberal nonsense was completely unrelated to these semantics.

I can't say for sure what the motivation of the school official's were anymore than I can label the kid a smart ass. I do believe it was an overreaction and by that overreaction became a national issue.

This is a bit of deja vu for me because I asked a question in my first post here and it wasn't answered. Let me rephrase the question to make it a bit more palatable. What if he had worn a shirt supporting an ERA Constitutional amendment? Do you think the school would have made him tape over the words?

I highly doubt it. What if it was a girl wearing a pro-plan parenthood shirt? Do you think she would have had to cover or turn the shirt inside out if men and women started being offended by the millions of abortions that PPH does? Or would the students have to be queled because its her "womans right" to be pro PPH?

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 04:04 PM
The US was founded by liberals.

Probably worthy of a signature spot.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 04:06 PM
Perhaps...there is no evidence the guy was a Democrat either. I summarily reject his assumption that the school leadership was either liberal or Democrat. The only real evidence we have as to their political implication is that they live in a Republican district, where a high school sophomore holds a part time job in a gun store, and the principal is an NRA member. The principle is not the one who handed out the punishment or had a problem with the shirt to begin with, it was the VP. Just like a police chief backing his officers in a "bad shooting" incident until a trial finds the officer guilty, a leader always backs their power structure so that they dont undermind the authority.


Perhaps. Nor can we say anything about the political leanings of the school leadership simply because of the supposed issue at hand. All comments from the school seem to indicate it wasn't the political position, but more of an insubordination issue. There wouldnt have been an "insubordination issue" if not for the political position.


Probably not...I think guns and schools get a lot of people irrationally nervous, and that's what this is about. Just based on what we see here, I'd venture to guess the VP was somewhat unreasonable in his request...the kid purposely defied him...and that's what led to the suspension. Could have happened if the kid didn't see any reason to throw out his gum, because gum does not cause anyone any harm and does not stick underneath the desks unless the person does it. So, gum is not the problem. I still don't think there is any reason to believe the VP is a liberal.
Its when people allow their own misgivings and nerves to be projected onto others is when the problem occurs. If the VP had kept their irrational fears to themselfs, the kid wouldnt be "defiant". Just because you have authority, doesnt mean you get to swing it around and punish those people who dont agree with you. Bad parents do this, bad principles do this, bad military and cops do this. Bad bosses do this. Its called being humble and knowing when to admit you are wrong, the VP was wrong, but instead, they chose to take it out on the student because the VP cant appear to be weak. Its called ego.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 04:08 PM
The principle is not the one who handed out the punishment or had a problem with the shirt to begin with, it was the VP. Just like a police chief backing his officers in a "bad shooting" incident until a trial finds the officer guilty, a leader always backs their power structure so that they dont undermind the authority.

There wouldnt have been an "insubordination issue" if not for the political position.


Its when people allow their own misgivings and nerves to be projected onto others is when the problem occurs. If the VP had kept their irrational fears to themselfs, the kid wouldnt be "defiant". Just because you have authority, doesnt mean you get to swing it around and punish those people who dont agree with you. Bad parents do this, bad principles do this, bad military and cops do this. Bad bosses do this. Its called being humble and knowing when to admit you are wrong, the VP was wrong, but instead, they chose to take it out on the student because the VP cant appear to be weak. Its called ego.

I don't disagree with that. I disagree with your assumption that VP was liberal or Democrat

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 04:09 PM
Probably worthy of a signature spot.

IF you include the context of the entire message. Its why Milton says CLASSIC liberal, NOT just liberal.

"If you called for equal treatment 100 years ago, you were called a radical. If you called for equal treatment 50 years ago, you were called a liberal. If you call for equal treatment today, you are racist." ~ Thomas Sorwell.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 04:12 PM
I don't disagree with that. I disagree with your assumption that VP was liberal or Democrat

And I agreed with you. I just went off the evidence. Called it "GZ" case until proven otherwise. You know, like the way GZ was called a White, racist, conservative until the evidence showed him to be latino, heavily involved in mentoring in the black community, and registered democrat who voted for Obama twice.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 04:17 PM
And I agreed with you. I just went off the evidence. Called it "GZ" case until proven otherwise. You know, like the way GZ was called a White, racist, conservative until the evidence showed him to be latino, heavily involved in mentoring in the black community, and registered democrat who voted for Obama twice.

I don't think I called GZ any of those things...I called him irresponsible with a firearm, maybe.

imnohero
03-14-2014, 04:18 PM
It wasn't against the dress code, as stated in the article.

No, the article quoted the father as saying that he didn't see anything in the dress code. Not the same thing. And besides, the kid had previously been told, and acknowledged that the shirt was inappropriate.

Oh, and the word is "empirical"

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 04:22 PM
And I agreed with you. I just went off the evidence.

Therein lies the problem, there is no evidence.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 04:23 PM
I don't think I called GZ any of those things...I called him irresponsible with a firearm, maybe.

I wasnt saying you called him that. You were fair towards you opinion of GZ case. Sorry if that came across like I accused you of something. That was jsut the way the liberal media described him.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 04:26 PM
No, the article quoted the father as saying that he didn't see anything in the dress code. Not the same thing. And besides, the kid had previously been told, and acknowledged that the shirt was inappropriate.

Oh, and the word is "empirical"

No, adhering to an overzealous authority figure is not the same thing as acknowldging the shirt was inappropriate. Just because you pay a speeding fine doesnt mean you agree you were speeding, just that you dont want to waste your time in court. Just because a business pays a settlement for a lawsuit doesnt mean it believes it was at fault, just knew it may cost more in the end for a court battle.

And thank you for the spell check.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 04:27 PM
Perhaps...there is no evidence the guy was a Democrat either. I summarily reject his assumption that the school leadership was either liberal or Democrat. The only real evidence we have as to their political implication is that they live in a Republican district, where a high school sophomore holds a part time job in a gun store, and the principal is an NRA member.



Perhaps. Nor can we say anything about the political leanings of the school leadership simply because of the supposed issue at hand. All comments from the school seem to indicate it wasn't the political position, but more of an insubordination issue.



Probably not...I think guns and schools get a lot of people irrationally nervous, and that's what this is about. Just based on what we see here, I'd venture to guess the VP was somewhat unreasonable in his request...the kid purposely defied him...and that's what led to the suspension. Could have happened if the kid didn't see any reason to throw out his gum, because gum does not cause anyone any harm and does not stick underneath the desks unless the person does it. So, gum is not the problem. I still don't think there is any reason to believe the VP is a liberal.

You can call it simply insubordination but that ignores the root cause which is the request to turn the shirt inside out.

Perhaps WJ should have simply titled the thread.......Nonsense

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 04:27 PM
Therein lies the problem, there is no evidence.

Sorry, should have said "evidence".

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 04:29 PM
Hard to speculate, unfortunately all we're doing is speculating about the intentions of the VP. I would say we have no real means to determine that in this instance. It could be his position about it was that, maybe due to sensitivities about Connecticut or whatever, it was liable to cause a ruckus at the school and it was the schools policy to take measures to avoid it. The instant I see anything attached to Fox News I pretty much expect the language to be written in a way to hyperbolize the situation for an agenda until facts prove otherwise.

Putting aside your quickness to assign an agenda to FNC and dismiss any on the participants of the story and WJ does tend to rely on Fox News but come on, this was reported pretty widely.

Rusty Jones
03-14-2014, 04:40 PM
I haven't even looked at the front page yet, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that WJ5 started this thread.

imnohero
03-14-2014, 04:40 PM
No, adhering to an overzealous authority figure is not the same thing as acknowldging the shirt was inappropriate. Just because you pay a speeding fine doesnt mean you agree you were speeding, just that you dont want to waste your time in court. Just because a business pays a settlement for a lawsuit doesnt mean it believes it was at fault, just knew it may cost more in the end for a court battle.

Oh good gravy...talk about nonsense.

Rusty Jones
03-14-2014, 04:40 PM
Yep! I was right!

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 04:50 PM
Putting aside your quickness to assign an agenda to FNC and dismiss any on the participants of the story and WJ does tend to rely on Fox News but come on, this was reported pretty widely.

It was?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-14-2014, 04:52 PM
Oh good gravy...talk about nonsense.

So you disagree with my assesment? Do you know of many companies that dont try to settle a lawsuit out of court? Insurance is a big one because they know the court can hammer them much more than they are wanting to settle for. What about kids, not all teens are defiant little turds who ignore adults and will just do what they are told, even if the adult is wrong. As we have seen, the VP has been overzealous in the past, and the kid wasnt going to be pushed around this time for nonsense about THE WORDS on his shirt as being offensive. He decided to stand for his beliefs, he had some conviction, and the VP got butt hurt when a kid didnt (Cartman voice) "listen to muh authoritah!!!"

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 06:13 PM
Putting aside your quickness to assign an agenda to FNC and dismiss any on the participants of the story and WJ does tend to rely on Fox News but come on, this was reported pretty widely.

I've yet to see FNC actually, well ever, live up to the "Fair and Balanced" approach so yes I will go out on a limb and say that yes, FNC is pursuing an agenda here. When I see supporting evidence that corroborates it I might give it some consideration.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 06:19 PM
It was?

I googled "student suspended for wearing NRA tshirt" and got several pages of hits. It doesn't look like CNN or MSNBC reported on it. Is that what you were getting at?

Interestingly CNN had a lot of coverage of the court ruling for the school system in California ban on US flag shirts.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 06:29 PM
I've yet to see FNC actually, well ever, live up to the "Fair and Balanced" approach so yes I will go out on a limb and say that yes, FNC is pursuing an agenda here. When I see supporting evidence that corroborates it I might give it some consideration.

So you base this on your observation and from their published remarks and results.

And we shouldn't do that with the school official why ?

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 06:32 PM
I googled "student suspended for wearing NRA tshirt" and got several pages of hits. It doesn't look like CNN or MSNBC reported on it. Is that what you were getting at?

Interestingly CNN had a lot of coverage of the court ruling for the school system in California ban on US flag shirts.

How many of them were either linked, or a direct paraphrase, of the FNC? Someone can type pure gibberish into google and get several pages of hits. For instance, I just typed "Monkeys pooping in the Rhine" and am looking at >10 pages.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 06:32 PM
I haven't even looked at the front page yet, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that WJ5 started this thread.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you but how could you have missed the thread's author? Flag thrown.


3745

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 06:33 PM
How many of them were either linked, or a direct paraphrase, of the FNC? Someone can type pure gibberish into google and get several pages of hits. For instance, I just typed "Monkeys pooping in the Rhine" and am looking at >10 pages.

Ok, so your point is?

BTW, I have no idea of the answer to your question. Are you saying that since the story was reported on FNC, regardless of the facts presented, we should disregard it? That sounds like an attempt to quash political discussion.

Edit: I figured I should actually look so is four non-FNC sources ok?

http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/local/2014/03/11/parents-believe-school-over-reacted-to-nra-shirt/6306507/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teen-suspended-arrested-nra-t-shirt-returns-school-shirt-article-1.1325252

http://news.yahoo.com/14-old-kid-arrested-over-pro-nra-shirt-071819724.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/west-virginia-teen-arrested-wearing-nra-shirt-school/story?id=19017896

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 06:35 PM
I googled "student suspended for wearing NRA tshirt" and got several pages of hits. It doesn't look like CNN or MSNBC reported on it. Is that what you were getting at?

I just didn't see it anywhere else.


Interestingly CNN had a lot of coverage of the court ruling for the school system in California ban on US flag shirts.

I wonder what the school is going to do next year when a bunch of kids show up to school with their shirts inside out?

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 06:37 PM
So you base this on your observation and from their published remarks and results.

And we shouldn't do that with the school official why ?

Because we know nothing except what the boy, who was the recipient of the disciplinary action, and his family stated about the school official and his position from where I can see. I've yet to see his side of the story from his own mouth. This is the problem with a lot of parents these days PERIOD. We (meaning many of us) take our own kids story as gospel and automatically assume they are being discriminated against by their teachers by some type of agenda. I would contest that until the VP makes some sort of statement, that is entirely an unknown.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 06:37 PM
OMG...authoritarian school principal bans student t-shirts supporting gay classmates:

Were they liberals?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/celina-high-school-studen_n_2062139.html

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 06:39 PM
I wonder what the school is going to do next year when a bunch of kids show up to school with their shirts inside out?

I like that idea.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 06:40 PM
Because we know nothing except what the boy, who was the recipient of the disciplinary action, and his family stated about the school official and his position from where I can see. I've yet to see his side of the story from his own mouth. This is the problem with a lot of parents these days PERIOD. We (meaning many of us) take our own kids story as gospel and automatically assume they are being discriminated against by their teachers by some type of agenda. I would contest that until the VP makes some sort of statement, that is entirely an unknown.

Look at the stories I cited.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 06:41 PM
OMG...authoritarian school principal bans student t-shirts supporting gay classmates:

Were they liberals?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/celina-high-school-studen_n_2062139.html


I don't know but is the ACLU helping the NY student?

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 06:50 PM
Look at the stories I cited.

Have you looked, and I mean really looked? What is the position of the VP? How about the School District? At the very least in what little they did say about their motives for the actions of the VP against the student? We get all the detail in the world about what the supposed "victim" of the purported "oppression" thought. Not a lot else. When asked their reasons they definitively stated the actions were intended to preserve order of some variety. I can see how a VP might take an action they feel necessary to accomplish that.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 06:51 PM
I don't know but is the ACLU helping the NY student?

I wouldn't know the ACLU's intentions, nor would I pretend otherwise. Maybe they feel there's nothing there to take on?

Rusty Jones
03-14-2014, 06:59 PM
Not that I necessarily disagree with you but how could you have missed the thread's author? Flag thrown.


3745

Because I don't use the main board page to view the threads. I use the activity log, and click on the most recent post.

Take your flag back. Jesus fucking Christ...

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 07:05 PM
I like that idea.

Yeah...the whole wearing US Flags on 5 May was some sort of silent "protest" or whatever the word is...with the potential to create hostility among the kids, which is why the school wanted to put a stop to it...had nothing to do with liberal teachers hating America or any other such nonsense.

What they are going to find, is that they won't be able to put a stop to it...next time it will be inside out shirts, or they will all wear red shirts...or blue or purple...it doesn't matter. They will never be able to ban/control or otherwise prevent a group of kids from wearing the same thing on a particular day.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 07:07 PM
I don't know but is the ACLU helping the NY student?

It wouldn't be the first time they helped a student wearing an NRA shirt

https://acluva.org/1635/appeals-court-rules-that-nra-t-shirt-is-entitled-to-free-speech-protections-in-school/

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 07:19 PM
Student suspended for supporting the wrong Multi-national corporation:


Student Suspended For Wearing a Pepsi T-Shirt!

by Todd Wiese toddw@theroc.org

Yep! Another student has gotten himself in trouble at school for wearing a t-shirt the officials didn't like. And just what offensive death-metal band graced the kid's chest? Cradle O' Filth? Marilyn Manson? NO! Pepsi Cola! Mike Cameron,19, a Senior at Greenbrier High School in Evans, GA, was suspended for one day for wearing the Pepsi t-shirt on official Coke Day! "In my eyes, I didn't do anything wrong," said Mike.

"We had the regional president (of Coca-Cola) here and people flew in from Atlanta to do us the honor of being resource speakers." complained Gloria Hamilton, the principal of Greenbrier High, in defense of Coke Education Day. "It's not a Coke-Pepsi war issue. It has nothing to do with that. It was a student deliberately being disuptive and rude." The event was organized as part of a $500.00 contest ran by the Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Augusta.

Mike's prank (and that's ALL that it was, a PRANK) not only involved wearing the shirt on Coke Day, but also in ruining a group photo where all the students stood in the form of the Coke logo. At the last minute when the picture was to be taken, Mike removed an outer shirt and displayed his Pepsi t-shirt. Coke executives seemed to take it better than Gloria Hamilton did. "The kid did what a kid does," said Diana Garza from Coke. "We have people coming into the World Coca-Cola (museum) in Atlanta wearing Pepsi shirts." Get over it, Gloria! Coke did!

Besides, what the hell does ANY cola, Coke OR Pepsi, have to do with public education? Selling out a students right to express his opinion (in this case his choice of soft drink) to win some contest sponsored by a COLA COMPANY is insane! Public schools are not funded by silly contests or multi-national conglomerates! They're funded by American tax dollars. This incident shows us not only the problems of abuse of power by school officials but also what a mess our school system is in when we have to resort to suspending kids for choosing the WRONG COLA!

Pepsi spokesman, Brad Shaw was as amused (if not angered) as we are, it seems over the incident. "It sounds like Mike's obviously a trendsetter with impeccable taste in clothes. We're going to make sure he's got plenty of Pepsi shirts to wear in the future once we track him down."

If you want to tell principal Gloria Hamilton to stick to concentrating on the challenge of educating America's future instead of taking the Pepsi Challenge, you can reach her at this address:

http://www.theroc.org/updates/pepsi.htm

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 07:46 PM
Have you looked, and I mean really looked? What is the position of the VP? How about the School District? At the very least in what little they did say about their motives for the actions of the VP against the student? We get all the detail in the world about what the supposed "victim" of the purported "oppression" thought. Not a lot else. When asked their reasons they definitively stated the actions were intended to preserve order of some variety. I can see how a VP might take an action they feel necessary to accomplish that.

First..........I never used the word 'victim' nor 'oppression'. I will repeat something I said last week. If you are going to quote my posts, use MY words.

Secondly, what was the threat to 'order'? In the California case there was long standing racial tension and although the school officials (in my opinion) acted inappropriately they at least had a perceived threat to order.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 07:46 PM
I wouldn't know the ACLU's intentions, nor would I pretend otherwise. Maybe they feel there's nothing there to take on?

Come on............you don't see a direct correlation? BTW. The story cited is from 2012.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 07:49 PM
Because I don't use the main board page to view the threads. I use the activity log, and click on the most recent post.

Take your flag back. Jesus fucking Christ...

Flag stays on the field.

Direct quote from the activity stream...............

"Yesterday, 02:08 PM

WILDJOKER5 started a thread Liberal non-sense. in In the News"

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 07:50 PM
Yeah...the whole wearing US Flags on 5 May was some sort of silent "protest" or whatever the word is...with the potential to create hostility among the kids, which is why the school wanted to put a stop to it...had nothing to do with liberal teachers hating America or any other such nonsense.

What they are going to find, is that they won't be able to put a stop to it...next time it will be inside out shirts, or they will all wear red shirts...or blue or purple...it doesn't matter. They will never be able to ban/control or otherwise prevent a group of kids from wearing the same thing on a particular day.


I have never thought there was any hate towards 'Merica in these actions. I think it is indicative of what has become the norm. Responding to bad behavior or the potential for bad behavior in the most indirect manner possible. It is a lot more complicated than that but for now that will do.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 07:52 PM
It wouldn't be the first time they helped a student wearing an NRA shirt

https://acluva.org/1635/appeals-court-rules-that-nra-t-shirt-is-entitled-to-free-speech-protections-in-school/

Looks like the NY family has cause for a lawsuit..........................

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 07:53 PM
Student suspended for supporting the wrong Multi-national corporation:

Now.........THAT kid was being a smart ass.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 07:54 PM
Looks like the NY family has cause for a lawsuit..........................

Could be...and if the ACLU were to get involved, I'm fairly confident which side they would get involved on.

They stand for freedom of speech almost every time. I know, a horrible liberal ideal. :-)

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 07:55 PM
Now.........THAT kid was being a smart ass.

LOL...no, really...I literally laughed out loud.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 08:06 PM
Could be...and if the ACLU were to get involved, I'm fairly confident which side they would get involved on.

They stand for freedom of speech almost every time. I know, a horrible liberal ideal. :-)

I know that. I have always said that while I disagree with them often I would hate to see them go away.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 08:19 PM
First..........I never used the word 'victim' nor 'oppression'. I will repeat something I said last week. If you are going to quote my posts, use MY words.

Secondly, what was the threat to 'order'? In the California case there was long standing racial tension and although the school officials (in my opinion) acted inappropriately they at least had a perceived threat to order.
I reply with quote so it is well and clear what my post was spoken in response to. The quotes around "victim" and "oppressors" were intended against the bias of the news articles, which play off the student as the "victim" of the "oppressive" school, especially in the FNC article. Unless I grossly overestimated your intellect I am sure you know that, or are guilty of what you accuse me of, as taking statements out of context or misrepresenting what was said.

As to your second question, you'll have to clarify the relevance for me. These actions are the actions of different individuals under different circumstances...

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 08:59 PM
I reply with quote so it is well and clear what my post was spoken in response to. The quotes around "victim" and "oppressors" were intended against the bias of the news articles, which play off the student as the "victim" of the "oppressive" school, especially in the FNC article. Unless I grossly overestimated your intellect I am sure you know that, or are guilty of what you accuse me of, as taking statements out of context or misrepresenting what was said.


Putting aside the transparent attempt at insulting my intelligence your explanation is irrelevant to my point. If you want to make a point on your perception of the bias of the news articles you had no need to quote my post particularly since your grossly exharderating the ‘bias’ in the articles

The first one was hardly biased and did offer both sides. I am puzzled by the statement from the school district.

“2 on Your Side attempted to speak several times with Grand Island Superintendent of Schools Terese Lawrence on Tuesday. She emailed us this statement:
The Grand Island School District recognizes this matter as an opportunity to review its policies, procedures and actions to ensure that they are consistent with our commitment to provide a safe learning environment and protect students' Constitutional rights.
I reiterate, no student was disciplined for wearing a shirt expressing a position on the NRA or gun control.”
Then what was he suspended for? Oh yeah, disobeying a teacher who told him to turn it inside out but if that was an inappropriate ‘order’ how can he be insubordinate?

I have to apologize that the second, third and fourth articles were about a different case. I guess we both missed that. I have to say though that I am very puzzled as to what drove you to characterize those articles as biased.



As to your second question, you'll have to clarify the relevance for me. These actions are the actions of different individuals under different circumstances...

So, two schools, both banning the wearing of certain t-shirts because of what they represent and you see no relevance there? Really?!? Speaking of “grossly overestimated your intellect”.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 09:16 PM
So, two schools, both banning the wearing of certain t-shirts because of what they represent and you see no relevance there? Really?!? Speaking of “grossly overestimated your intellect”.
You just love that dodge don't you, "But, but, I never actually said that!" Of course you didn't. I don't feel the need to attack or rebut every single point you make, all for some grandiose title of "King of the Interwebz" (relax, again not quoting you this time either) some of them I agree with. My replies have never been as such, and the use of a quoted word may be a quote of any entity, not necessarily yourself. I wasn't under the impression the MTF forum was a graduate level dissertation that required the use of footnotes.

The relevance is questionable simply because we don't have a definitive answer towards what motivated this VP to take the action he took, we only know what action he took. If it was because he felt it a necessity to effectively "keep the peace" in his schools, well, that's kinda sorta his job don't ya think? So yes, until the details are known the relevance is highly questionable. This VP could be a minor commando himself with fifteen different types of weapons in his home for all that is known. What is known is that he asked the young man to not display the things he was displaying on his shirt, for whatever reason he felt it necessary to do so. So since the situations are different outside of the abstract any discerning, critical thinking individual can determine they may or may not be related.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 09:26 PM
blah blah blah... not everything is a "constitutional rights" issue.


Unless it has to do with gays.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 09:31 PM
You just love that dodge don't you, "But, but, I never actually said that!" Of course you didn't. I don't feel the need to attack or rebut every single point you make, all for some grandiose title of "King of the Interwebz" (relax, again not quoting you this time either) some of them I agree with. My replies have never been as such, and the use of a quoted word may be a quote of any entity, not necessarily yourself. I wasn't under the impression the MTF forum was a graduate level dissertation that required the use of footnotes.

The relevance is questionable simply because we don't have a definitive answer towards what motivated this VP to take the action he took, we only know what action he took. If it was because he felt it a necessity to effectively "keep the peace" in his schools, well, that's kinda sorta his job don't ya think? So yes, until the details are known the relevance is highly questionable. This VP could be a minor commando himself with fifteen different types of weapons in his home for all that is known. What is known is that he asked the young man to not display the things he was displaying on his shirt, for whatever reason he felt it necessary to do so. So since the situations are different outside of the abstract any discerning, critical thinking individual can determine they may or may not be related.

So are you saying that it's ok to take away freedom in order to uphold peace? We all know the quote about liberty and security...the problem isn't with what's being expressed by these shirts. The problem is that we are seeing more and more instances of these expressions being suppressed in order to "keep the peace".

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 09:38 PM
You just love that dodge don't you, "But, but, I never actually said that!" Of course you didn't. I don't feel the need to attack or rebut every single point you make, all for some grandiose title of "King of the Interwebz" (relax, again not quoting you this time either) some of them I agree with. My replies have never been as such, and the use of a quoted word may be a quote of any entity, not necessarily yourself. I wasn't under the impression the MTF forum was a graduate level dissertation that required the use of footnotes.

The relevance is questionable simply because we don't have a definitive answer towards what motivated this VP to take the action he took, we only know what action he took. If it was because he felt it a necessity to effectively "keep the peace" in his schools, well, that's kinda sorta his job don't ya think? So yes, until the details are known the relevance is highly questionable. This VP could be a minor commando himself with fifteen different types of weapons in his home for all that is known. What is known is that he asked the young man to not display the things he was displaying on his shirt, for whatever reason he felt it necessary to do so. So since the situations are different outside of the abstract any discerning, critical thinking individual can determine they may or may not be related.

I see we have entirely skipped the first part of my post. So be it.

You seem to have missed my use of the word quote. It wasn't your using quotes in your post it was quoting my post and then using words which I did not use but which inferred I believed that position. I also seem to have hit a nerve somehow.

You contradict your own position. We do know what motivated the VP, you stated it yourself..........'keep the peace'. Although more accurately I believe he used the term maintain order.

The two situations are absolutely related and to keep denying that is very transparent. I am not even sure why you are denying it since the mere fact they are related in no way supports one position or another, it is just fact. Unless of course it is merely to refute anything I said or defend anything you do. Either case, seems silly.

BTW: Exactly what did I 'dodge'?

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 09:51 PM
That depends, do we equate a local public school to the NSA? The problems with public schools aside, do you not feel it a prerogative of the local PTA to establish rules and guidelines for that specific school in a manner they feel appropriate to preserve the safety and security of their children attending that institution?

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 10:02 PM
That depends, do we equate a local public school to the NSA? The problems with public schools aside, do you not feel it a prerogative of the local PTA to establish rules and guidelines for that specific school in a manner they feel appropriate to preserve the safety and security of their children attending that institution?

I'm not equating anything. Citizens are citizens. The wearing of these shirts did nothing to the preservation of safety. Not one single thing. The threat to safety was those who had a problem with it.

It's one thing if the school wants to implement a uniform policy. But that's not the case in either of these instances.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 10:02 PM
I see we have entirely skipped the first part of my post. So be it.

You seem to have missed my use of the word quote. It wasn't your using quotes in your post it was quoting my post and then using words which I did not use but which inferred I believed that position. I also seem to have hit a nerve somehow.

You contradict your own position. We do know what motivated the VP, you stated it yourself..........'keep the peace'. Although more accurately I believe he used the term maintain order.

The two situations are absolutely related and to keep denying that is very transparent. I am not even sure why you are denying it since the mere fact they are related in no way supports one position or another, it is just fact. Unless of course it is merely to refute anything I said or defend anything you do. Either case, seems silly.

BTW: Exactly what did I 'dodge'?
The "dodge" I was referring to was your attempt to direct the conversation away from the main point by using one of the things I put into quotes and stating that you never said those words. I don't disagree with you, I used those words. The only words you used were in the "Reply with Quote" box (again not a direct quote of you, since apparently this requires some form of clarification here.)

My total point is that we do not know the VP's motivations behind his actions. To assert or imply that he took the actions that he did take because he makes Dianne Feinstein look like Ted Nugent (intentional hyperbole) is unwarranted. We can compare and contrast the actions themselves (one racial another pro-gun) which are related IF we're just on a "freedom of speech" (again not quoting you) basis but other than that they are pretty divergent as they occurred on a different location, with different individuals, with differing motives, under different circumstances, so the comparability is fairly abstract.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 10:07 PM
I'm not equating anything. Citizens are citizens. The wearing of these shirts did nothing to the preservation of safety. Not one single thing. The threat to safety was those who had a problem with it.

It's one thing if the school wants to implement a uniform policy. But that's not the case in either of these instances.
Are you certain? Maybe there are circumstances in that school going on that we are not aware of where something like that would lead to violence or some other form of chaos. If it is your position (is it?) that schools without a uniform policy cannot set standards of conduct and dress for their students, are you cool with picture of a horse raping a human woman on a five year old's t-shirt? I think that is rhetorical, but where do you draw the line? Also, do you agree this is arbitrary? If so, do you also agree it is the prerogative of the school itself to set those standards for their students?

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 10:17 PM
Are you certain? Maybe there are circumstances in that school going on that we are not aware of where something like that would lead to violence or some other form of chaos. So deal with those who would become violent.

If it is your position (is it?) that schools without a uniform policy cannot set standards of conduct and dress for their students, are you cool with picture of a horse raping a human woman on a five year old's t-shirt? I think that is rhetorical, but where do you draw the line? Also, do you agree this is arbitrary? If so, do you also agree it is the prerogative of the school itself to set those standards for their students?They CAN set standards. The problem with these cases is that there was no standard saying they couldn't wear the shirts they were wearing. If there was, I'm not aware of it. I don't claim to know what these schools allowed. If they had rules against flags or guns or whatever on t-shirts, then it falls to the parents and the student. If they didn't, then it becomes a 1st amendment violation. There's a huge difference between rules and reaction. Both of these cases were a reaction that the faculty was not capable of handling in an intelligent manner.

I do believe the intentions of the faculty were good. I really do. But good intentions doesn't always make something right.

Rusty Jones
03-14-2014, 10:26 PM
Flag stays on the field.

Direct quote from the activity stream...............

"Yesterday, 02:08 PM

WILDJOKER5 started a thread Liberal non-sense. in In the News"

I didn't look down that far. The thread was already six pages long by the time I got to it. You don't want your flag? I'll just throw it off the field myself.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 10:27 PM
So deal with those who would become violent.
They CAN set standards. The problem with these cases is that there was no standard saying they couldn't wear the shirts they were wearing. If there was, I'm not aware of it. I don't claim to know what these schools allowed. If they had rules against flags or guns or whatever on t-shirts, then it falls to the parents and the student. If they didn't, then it becomes a 1st amendment violation. There's a huge difference between rules and reaction. Both of these cases were a reaction that the faculty was not capable of handling in an intelligent manner.

I do believe the intentions of the faculty were good. I really do. But good intentions doesn't always make something right.
I absolutely agree with the last point but I just don't have the insider information on what the climate is like in that school to address the first, and I daresay unless you have kids there, you probably don't either. These days we're pretty good at hamstringing our school faculties collectively with all of these restrictions, and the schools, and the students, have suffered for it. That isn't the be-all end-all of the problems with our educational system but it is certainly a contributor. I presume your time in the Air Force has put you in charge of someone who is generally (at least physically) an adult. I presume if so you've experienced that the decisions we have to make in the enforcement of our rules can sometimes be of an arbitrary nature and open to the scrutiny of other individuals. I tend to wonder whether a kindergarten's rules of conduct specifically address equestrian bestiality, does that deprive the faculty of the prerogative to take action were they to seem openly displayed on somebody's t-shirt?

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 10:34 PM
I absolutely agree with the last point but I just don't have the insider information on what the climate is like in that school to address the first, and I daresay unless you have kids there, you probably don't either. These days we're pretty good at hamstringing our school faculties collectively with all of these restrictions, and the schools, and the students, have suffered for it. That isn't the be-all end-all of the problems with our educational system but it is certainly a contributor. I presume your time in the Air Force has put you in charge of someone who is generally (at least physically) an adult. I presume if so you've experienced that the decisions we have to make in the enforcement of our rules can sometimes be of an arbitrary nature and open to the scrutiny of other individuals. I tend to wonder whether a kindergarten's rules of conduct specifically address equestrian bestiality, does that deprive the faculty of the prerogative to take action were they to seem openly displayed on somebody's t-shirt?

Yeah, cuz that's the same thing as wearing a shirt.

I just hope they don't let people wear pro-abortion shirts or rainbows as that could incite violence from Christians. And it's not the fault of the Christians if they start the violence because, obviously, people should have known better than to wear the wear the rainbows.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 10:43 PM
[/B]

Yeah, cuz that's the same thing as wearing a shirt.

I just hope they don't let people wear pro-abortion shirts or rainbows as that could incite violence from Christians. And it's not the fault of the Christians if they start the violence because, obviously, people should have known better than to wear the wear the rainbows.

In your latter example, would you fault the individual who asked a student to turn that rainbow or pro-abortion t-shirt inside out (or cover it) because he felt it might become disruptive?

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 10:49 PM
The "dodge" I was referring to was your attempt to direct the conversation away from the main point by using one of the things I put into quotes and stating that you never said those words. I don't disagree with you, I used those words. The only words you used were in the "Reply with Quote" box (again not a direct quote of you, since apparently this requires some form of clarification here.)

My total point is that we do not know the VP's motivations behind his actions. To assert or imply that he took the actions that he did take because he makes Dianne Feinstein look like Ted Nugent (intentional hyperbole) is unwarranted. We can compare and contrast the actions themselves (one racial another pro-gun) which are related IF we're just on a "freedom of speech" (again not quoting you) basis but other than that they are pretty divergent as they occurred on a different location, with different individuals, with differing motives, under different circumstances, so the comparability is fairly abstract.

Well, not sure how that is a dodge but you have explained.

As to the VP's motivation..............did you miss this part of my post (and the article)?..............."We do know what motivated the VP, you stated it yourself..........'keep the peace'. Although more accurately I believe he used the term maintain order."

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 10:51 PM
I didn't look down that far. The thread was already six pages long by the time I got to it. You don't want your flag? I'll just throw it off the field myself.

What in God's name are you talking about? There is nothing related to how far down you looked. You stated you didn't know who started the thread and further stated this is because you looked at the activity stream and I quoted exactly what the activity stream says..........which is that WJ started a thread titled Liberal non-sense. If you saw the thread title in the activity stream then you saw who started it.

Is one of your alt accounts Corney?

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 10:59 PM
In your latter example, would you fault the individual who asked a student to turn that rainbow or pro-abortion t-shirt inside out (or cover it) because he felt it might become disruptive?

YES...I would...absolutely. Though we both know they would never be asked to do so...because that would be hateful.

Measure Man
03-14-2014, 11:00 PM
What in God's name are you talking about? There is nothing related to how far down you looked. You stated you didn't know who started the thread and further stated this is because you looked at the activity stream and I quoted exactly what the activity stream says..........which is that WJ started a thread titled Liberal non-sense. If you saw the thread title in the activity stream then you saw who started it.

Is one of your alt accounts Corney?

Good grief, man...if you open Activity stream, you get something like this:

3747

He can see someone replied to a thread, but not who started it.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 11:05 PM
As to the VP's motivation..............did you miss this part of my post (and the article)?..............."We do know what motivated the VP, you stated it yourself..........'keep the peace'. Although more accurately I believe he used the term maintain order."
In complete honesty it's been hard to discern what your point was. If your point was that his motivation was to "keep the peace" as stated I'm not sure we disagree but I wouldn't leave out the option that he was a feminist neo-Nazi beatnik tree-hugger who was specifically targeting that educated young man when he asserted his Constitutional freedoms either (facetiousness and hyperbole for humor purposes). Other than our diversion over the use of quotations in our text my assertion here has been that he could very well have had more benign intentions, and the latter probably wasn't the case. However, every time FNC sniffs out possible 2nd Amendment in a story they leach onto it the way Al Sharpton jumps on an interaction between two individuals who belong to different races. That genuinely strikes a nerve, any interaction with you has mainly been teasing, I do that every now and then. I think it fair to say another individual whose name need not be mentioned jumped on this issue like a horny German Shepherd on a French Poodle and my intentions have been to clarify (MM did much better at it this go-around) that what the story says, may have been done in a misleading fashion by a "news" (quotes imply sarcasm in this instance) organization that has based a lot of its ratings on stroking controversial issues.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 11:10 PM
YES...I would...absolutely. Though we both know they would never be asked to do so...because that would be hateful.

You would fault the VP who asked a student to turn their pro-abortion shirt inside out or cover it up because he felt it would be disruptive to have that on open display among the more religious students?

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 11:25 PM
You would fault the VP who asked a student to turn their pro-abortion shirt inside out or cover it up because he felt it would be disruptive to have that on open display among the more religious students?

Absolutely...100%.

But, again, we know that would never be asked.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 11:27 PM
Absolutely...100%.

But, again, we know that would never be asked.
Why exactly? With what would you fault the VP for doing something of this nature?

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 11:31 PM
Why exactly? With what would you fault the VP for doing something of this nature?

Because people have the right to express themselves, as long as they are not causing harm to anyone. The gun shirt, the flag shirt, the rainbow shirt, the pro-abortion shirt...none of these things are harming anyone. The people who need to be reprimanded are those who aren't tolerant of those expressing their views, no matter what those views are.

And there is a difference between expressing political views and displaying obscenities.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2014, 11:38 PM
Good grief, man...if you open Activity stream, you get something like this:

3747

He can see someone replied to a thread, but not who started it.

Ah, I see so he first saw the activity stream after several posts had been listed.

Sorry Rusty, this time you were telling the truth. I apologize.

EDIT: I use New Posts. It cuts down on extraneous information on posts. For instance, this one thread pretty much dominates the activity stream for the day.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2014, 11:50 PM
Because people have the right to express themselves, as long as they are not causing harm to anyone. The gun shirt, the flag shirt, the rainbow shirt, the pro-abortion shirt...none of these things are harming anyone. The people who need to be reprimanded are those who aren't tolerant of those expressing their views, no matter what those views are.

And there is a difference between expressing political views and displaying obscenities.

I'll have to very vehemently disagree with you there, I do think certain allowances should be made to empower the faculty to control attire where it may be considered disruptive to the learning environment, much as I would stop a female sailor from leaving a ship's quarterdeck in a Sharia-law country in attire that blatantly is going to get her into trouble with the locals.

sandsjames
03-14-2014, 11:58 PM
I'll have to very vehemently disagree with you there, I do think certain allowances should be made to empower the faculty to control attire where it may be considered disruptive to the learning environment, much as I would stop a female sailor from leaving a ship's quarterdeck in a Sharia-law country in attire that blatantly is going to get her into trouble with the locals.

"May be considered disruptive" is the key part of your statement. As I said earlier, if the school wants to ban all political statement type clothing I'm fine with it. I have no issues with a dress code at a school anymore than I have a problem with a dress code at a place of work, a club, a restaurant, or anywhere else. However, if they choose not to then they MUST allow ALL political statements to be made.

As far as the Sharia-law country, that's different. Those countries don't provide the same protections we do. Would you stop a female sailor from walking through a Muslim neighborhood in the U.S in normal American women's attire?

Measure Man
03-15-2014, 05:15 AM
"May be considered disruptive" is the key part of your statement. As I said earlier, if the school wants to ban all political statement type clothing I'm fine with it. I have no issues with a dress code at a school anymore than I have a problem with a dress code at a place of work, a club, a restaurant, or anywhere else. However, if they choose not to then they MUST allow ALL political statements to be made.

As far as the Sharia-law country, that's different. Those countries don't provide the same protections we do. Would you stop a female sailor from walking through a Muslim neighborhood in the U.S in normal American women's attire?

I dunno..I'm just kind of thinking...let's chill out and leave it to the judgement of the guys close to the ground.

Most of them are pretty decent people that don't really hate America. Yeah, they're gonna make mistakes, but let's just go with they are trying to do the best they can.

AJBIGJ
03-15-2014, 05:42 AM
I dunno..I'm just kind of thinking...let's chill out and leave it to the judgement of the guys close to the ground.

Most of them are pretty decent people that don't really hate America. Yeah, they're gonna make mistakes, but let's just go with they are trying to do the best they can.
And that I think is key, I'm all for free people exercising their rights, but this includes the right to sustain an organization (as a going concern) in a means they deem necessary. If that offends their "customers" (still not quoting you TJMAC:lmao:) oh well. In an ideal world, the customers should have alternatives to consider. If a school wants to begin their day with 150 "Heil Hitlers" (again not quoting you TJMAC) I don't see a problem with their means of educating one or less individuals!

sandsjames
03-15-2014, 12:46 PM
I dunno..I'm just kind of thinking...let's chill out and leave it to the judgement of the guys close to the ground.

Most of them are pretty decent people that don't really hate America. Yeah, they're gonna make mistakes, but let's just go with they are trying to do the best they can.

I agree they don't hate America. I agree they are probably good people. They also aren't constitutional lawyers. But intent doesn't always justify the outcome. Maybe they need some kind of guidance or training for these type of situations.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-16-2014, 10:02 PM
OMG...authoritarian school principal bans student t-shirts supporting gay classmates:

Were they liberals?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/celina-high-school-studen_n_2062139.html
Being as I called them liberal, isn't really the crux of the thread. Its about what schools and especially "Authoritarians" (as you hit the nail on the head) in leadership positions do when it comes to the constitution. As was said over and over again, the original student had to cover up the WORDS, not the guns. Words that don't say "kill", "death", "destruction" or any deviant behavior what so ever.

I did find it amazing though how the story you linked came out in the end with a liberal kid suing over rights for a finical gain, wonder if this NRA member who is conservative will sue?


In May, Ohio high school student Maverick Couch was awarded $20,000 in a lawsuit he filed agains the Waynesville Local School District. The settlement came after Couch sued the district for violating his freedom of expression rights for disallowing him to wear a T-shirt that read "Jesus Is Not A Homophobe" and the image of a rainbow fish

Measure Man
03-17-2014, 03:16 PM
Being as I called them liberal, isn't really the crux of the thread.

I guess it's just a strange coincidence.