Flags Banned At Local High School

[Kelzie]

Yes, it is liberals fault because when a child misbehaved when I was a kid he was punished. You can't do that now. You can't touch a child now and they know it. They can dress like bums and you can't do a thing about it. Why? Liberal policies.

There were no mass shootings in schools when I was a kid. There were no snotty kids sassing teachers and getting by with it. I never saw drugs in schools and now it's a problem in every school. Why?

I agree parents should discipline their kids. It is also true that a lot of parents don't discipline their kids and the schools has to but can't because their hands are tied by..........liberals. The authority of the adult has decreased and the freedom of the child has increased and the child is not responsible enough to handle it correctly. You can't let the inmates run the asylum.

It's not the schools fault that parents suck.

 

[Alias]

It's not the schools fault that parents suck.

You are correct, but it is liberals fault that the schools suck because liberals run the school system.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not when that speech would incite violence. SCOTUS was very clear that it had to be peaceful.

Again ma'am how in the hell do you wave a flag violently??? :doh

 

[Conflict]

L_b_r_l...

Wanna buy a vow?...:2wave:

Yeah... I'll take the "I" for a vowel.. but let's also delete the consonant "r"..... which equals what? Libel. Heh.

 

[Conflict]

The courts have ruled that freedom of expression falls under freedom of speech, I forget the name of the case but it involved a man who got arrested for wearing a shirt that read: "fuc/k the draft." His conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Yeah, well, I didn't see your fake little toosh supporting Cindy Sheehan when she tried to utilize her freedom of expression.. now did I, you toad????

 

[Alias]

Cindy Sheehan is a very sad case. She hasn't even got a headstone for her son's grave yet. That says a lot.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yeah, well, I didn't see your fake little toosh supporting Cindy Sheehan when she tried to utilize her freedom of expression.. now did I, you toad????

As per the rules of Congress you're not allowed to wear anything of a political nature during the State of the Union they kicked out the person wearing a shirt that supported the troops as well.

It's two completely separate issues, Cindy Sheehan was a guest and upon accepting her invitation she agreed upon certain conditions, however, students have to go to school and have not entered into any agreement concerning limitations on their freedom of expression.

p.s. eat me.

 

[Conflict]

As per the rules of Congress you're not allowed to wear anything of a political nature during the State of the Union they kicked the person wearing a shirt that supported the troops as well.

It's two completely separate issues, Cindy Sheehan was a guest and upon accepting her invitation she agreed upon certain conditions, however, students have to go to school and have not entered into any agreement concerning limitations on their freedom of expression.

p.s. eat me.

So you are stating that freedom of expression is a selective issue? It's not a right? It's only a privelege? LOLOL! You're hilarious. Your double talk is so transparent.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So you are stating that freedom of expression is a selective issue? It's not a right? It's only a privelege? LOLOL! You're hilarious. Your double talk is so transparent.

Umm that's not what I said what I said was that when Cindy Sheehan accepted her ticked she entered into a contractual agreement, her entry into the State of the Union was incumbant upon her following the rules she violated the rules which she had agreed upon of her own free will and that's why she was escorted out.

She entered into the contractual agreement of her own free will no one forced her to agree to the rules, however, students are forced to attend school so the two situations are completely different.

 

[Conflict]

Umm that's not what I said what I said was that when Cindy Sheehan accepted her ticked she entered into a contractual agreement, her entry into the State of the Union was incumbant upon her following the rules she violated the rules and that's why she was escorted out.

She entered into the contractual agreement of her own free will no one forced her to agree to the rules, however, students are forced to attend school so the two situations are completely different.

There is no contractual agreement that exists that pertains to the rights of the American people as granted by our constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. I don't care about the flag anymore. It does not represent what it should due to the selective morality and the obsequious individuals such as your self. I am only referring to the supreme court ruling that YOU cited. Anything less is irrelevant.

Don't run away coward.

Don't be afraid.

Admit that you are a complete sycophant.

Admit that you are WRONG.

Or just be a coward.

I know exactly what you'll do. You'll run in the wind with your redundant diatribe.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

There is no contractual agreement that exists that pertains to the rights of the American people as granted by our constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. I don't care about the flag anymore. It does not represent what it should due to the selective morality and the obsequious individuals such as your self. I am only referring to the supreme court ruling that YOU cited. Anything less is irrelevant.

Don't run away coward.

Don't be afraid.

Admit that you are a complete sycophant.

Admit that you are WRONG.

Or just be a coward.

I know exactly what you'll do. You'll run in the wind with your redundant diatribe.

The Supreme Court case which I presented is totally different from the case of Cindy Sheehan. Her accepting that contractual agreement would be the same thing as entering into a non-disclosure agreement with your company ie you are not allowed to discuss company secrets and then claim to be protected by the first amendment, it just doesn't work like that.

The fact of the matter is that upon accepting the invitation she agreed to the rules laid forth by Congress concerning appropriate behavior at the state of the union, she violated the rules which she had agreed to of her own free will, ie it was not protected speech.

Now if you would like to submit an argument as to why you think Ms. Sheehan's actions were protected speech them I'm all ears but up until this point you have not stated one relevant aspect to the case at hand.

 

[Conflict]

The Supreme Court case which I presented is totally different from the case of Cindy Sheehan. Her accepting that contractual agreement would be the same thing as entering into a non-disclosure agreement with your company ie you are not allowed to discuss company secrets and then claim to be protected by the first amendment, it just doesn't work like that.

The fact of the matter is that upon accepting the invitation she agreed to the rules laid forth by Congress concerning appropriate behavior at the state of the union, she violated the rules which she had agreed to of her own free will, ie it was not protected speech.

Now if you would like to submit an argument as to why you think Ms. Sheehan's actions were protected speech them I'm all ears but up until this point you have not stated one relevant aspect to the case at hand.

LOL! So the supreme court ruling only matters if you agree? You should have mentioned that the first time. You really crack me up bub!

You have no inkling of what "our" flag represents.... You should be waving a flag with the nazi symbol on it...... The swastika serves your idealogy well, my friend.

 

[Alias]

LOL! So the supreme court ruling only matters if you agree? You should have mentioned that the first time. You really crack me up bub!

You have no inkling of what "our" flag represents.... You should be waving a flag with the nazi symbol on it...... The swastika serves your idealogy well, my friend.

Oh, oh. Here comes the name calling. You just called this guy a nazi. Let me guess. You're a liberal, right?

 

[Conflict]

Oh, oh. Here comes the name calling. You just called this guy a nazi. Let me guess. You're a liberal, right?

I'm the type of person that is just a person. I need not adhere to any political doctrine. Of course I encounter people like you everyday. Simple minded folk who do nothing more than adhere to their particular party... paying no attention to the facts of the matter. If you want to hide behind a party.. that's your choice. I agree with certain liberal ideas as I do to certain conservative ideas. This thread actually pertains to a conservative ideology; that being the maintenance of freedom of expression. I am all for the maintenance of freedom of expression and apparently you are not. So what does that make you? An *** kissing sycophant who refuses to think but only agrees with whatever party he claims to be aligned with. People like you are the epitome of why our country has gone to hell. You are incapable of thinking for yourself. You're a completel follower. If the GOP told your savant kiester to jump off a bridge... you would do it. Capiche'?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh, oh. Here comes the name calling. You just called this guy a nazi. Let me guess. You're a liberal, right?

No worse he's a conspiracy theorist. In fact he shares alot of theories with Nazi's himself, specifically he believes that the Federal Government is controlled by a secret Cabal of some unkown origin.

And if memory serves he believes that 9-11 was an inside job.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

LOL! So the supreme court ruling only matters if you agree? You should have mentioned that the first time. You really crack me up bub!

You have no inkling of what "our" flag represents.... You should be waving a flag with the nazi symbol on it...... The swastika serves your idealogy well, my friend.

Your ignorance of what I'm discussing is astounding. I am discussing a Supreme Court case regarding free speech rights in the public sector; namely public school ie the Tinker V Des Moins case dealing with free speech rights in Public School, this case would have no bearing what so ever on the State of the Union Address.


The State of the Union address is by invitation only which means that it is no longer in the public square. Congress gets to conduct session any way it sees fit and the rules of the House and the Senate while in session are decided on by Congress themselves through a vote. Non-Senators and Non-Representatives are only allowed to attend the session by invitation. By accepting that invitation to attend a Joint Session of Congress for the State of the Union Address Ms. Sheehan violated the rules which she had agreed to before she was given the invitation and she was kicked out for breach of contract.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'm the type of person that is just a person. I need not adhere to any political doctrine. Of course I encounter people like you everyday. Simple minded folk who do nothing more than adhere to their particular party... paying no attention to the facts of the matter. If you want to hide behind a party.. that's your choice. I agree with certain liberal ideas as I do to certain conservative ideas. This thread actually pertains to a conservative ideology; that being the maintenance of freedom of expression. I am all for the maintenance of freedom of expression and apparently you are not. So what does that make you? An *** kissing sycophant who refuses to think but only agrees with whatever party he claims to be aligned with. People like you are the epitome of why our country has gone to hell. You are incapable of thinking for yourself. You're a completel follower. If the GOP told your savant kiester to jump off a bridge... you would do it. Capiche'?

Oh, conflict, you've been missed.

 

[Conflict]

Your ignorance of what I'm discussing is astounding. I am discussing a Supreme Court case regarding free speech rights in the public sector; namely public school ie the Tinker V Des Moins case dealing with free speech rights in Public School, this case would have no bearing what so ever on the State of the Union Address.


The State of the Union address is by invitation only which means that it is no longer in the public square. Congress gets to conduct session any way it sees fit and the rules of the House and the Senate while in session are decided on by Congress themselves through a vote. Non-Senators and Non-Representatives are only allowed to attend the session by invitation. By accepting that invitation to attend a Joint Session of Congress for the State of the Union Address Ms. Sheehan violated the rules which she had agreed to before she was given the invitation and she was kicked out for breach of contract.

You are missing the priniciple, dear boy... Why create laws that hide the true state of our union? Why sit by idly as we continue to be misrepresented by poindexter polyglots. Why should the American people allow the "STATE OR OUR UNION" to be controlled by such overbearing restrictions? Eh? What about when Sheehan was protesting in MY home state... Texas.... I didn't hear you crying for her rights then!~ LOL! Give me a break. The fact that our government has to exert such control over a gathering which discusses the simple "state of our union" is NOTHING more than disturbing to any TRUE PATRIOT. What now?

 

[Conflict]

Oh, conflict, you've been missed.

As always we find such deep and intricate remarks from the one known only as RightatNYU. He does much better in the basement with his ilk... where flamboyant rhetoric is his niche of intellectual superiority. You don't hear much of him otherwise. LOL.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You are missing the priniciple, dear boy... Why create laws that hide the true state of our union? Why sit by idly as we continue to be misrepresented by poindexter polyglots. Why should the American people allow the "STATE OR OUR UNION" to be controlled by such overbearing restrictions? Eh? What about when Sheehan was protesting in MY home state... Texas.... I didn't hear you crying for her rights then!~ LOL! Give me a break. The fact that our government has to exert such control over a gathering which discusses the simple "state of our union" is NOTHING more than disturbing to any TRUE PATRIOT. What now?

No, give me a break you're comparing a war protest inside the State of the Union Address to wearing an American flag on your t-shirt. It's apples and oranges. Now off to your Alex Jones website to investigate the latest diabolical scheme concocted by the evil minions of the illuminati and the new world order.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

The difference is, American flags belong in American schools.

I don't object to Mexican-Americans using their flag as a symbol of pride in their heritage-- as many other ethnicities do in the United States-- but many Mexicans fly it without flying the American flag, or fly it in a superior or equal position to the American flag.

If they want to be Mexicans, and they want to take pride in Mexico-- an admirable attitude-- they should live and work in Mexico and raise their families there to be proud Mexican citizens.

BING****INO

 

[RightinNYC]

As always we find such deep and intricate remarks from the one known only as RightatNYU. He does much better in the basement with his ilk... where flamboyant rhetoric is his niche of intellectual superiority. You don't hear much of him otherwise. LOL.

Dang it, banned before I even got a chance to respond.

Oh conflict, me and my "ilk" will miss you indeed.

I hope sincerely for your sake that you get the help you need.