Politcal Correctness (FBI/DOD could have stopped Fort Hood)

[Nobunaga]

... High school boys are sent home from school (in America) for wearing U.S. flag T-shirts and refusing to turn them inside out on the 5th of May.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-be ... 45969.html

... Unf*ckingbelievable.

...

[Woodruff]

... High school boys are sent home from school (in America) for wearing U.S. flag T-shirts and refusing to turn them inside out on the 5th of May.

It annoys the hell out of me personally that those high school boys are wearing U.S. flag T-shirts anyway. Pisses me off when depictions of the flag are worn as clothing...it's not respectful in any way. But that's a different issue...

However, that being as it may...the boys were frankly TRYING to instigate trouble. Say what you want, but why else would they be wearing the t-shirts and bandanas on THIS PARTICULAR DAY when, per stated reports by other students, they didn't typically wear those shirts and bandanas? In my view, attempting to incite violence at school is worthy of being sent home.

Now, if it could be shown that these boys did typically wear these shirts and bandanas (by say...wearing them maybe a couple of times per month or so), then no they shouldn't be sent home because the situation is then a significantly different one.

[Nobunaga]

... High school boys are sent home from school (in America) for wearing U.S. flag T-shirts and refusing to turn them inside out on the 5th of May.

It annoys the hell out of me personally that those high school boys are wearing U.S. flag T-shirts anyway. Pisses me off when depictions of the flag are worn as clothing...it's not respectful in any way. But that's a different issue...

However, that being as it may...the boys were frankly TRYING to instigate trouble. Say what you want, but why else would they be wearing the t-shirts and bandanas on THIS PARTICULAR DAY when, per stated reports by other students, they didn't typically wear those shirts and bandanas? In my view, attempting to incite violence at school is worthy of being sent home.

Now, if it could be shown that these boys did typically wear these shirts and bandanas (by say...wearing them maybe a couple of times per month or so), then no they shouldn't be sent home because the situation is then a significantly different one.

... Good argument.

...

[john9blue]

You're tiptoeing around the issue Woody. Whether you personally disagree with their clothing is a whole different issue. Whether they were "trying to incite violence" is not relevant. Some girls here wear clothing that could be seen as "trying to incite sexual assault"... I guess they should be forced to cover up?

Essentially they are being forced to honor a Mexican holiday, in America, by forceful repression of their disagreement. Shit like this needs to be nipped in the bud.

[Woodruff]

You're tiptoeing around the issue Woody. Whether you personally disagree with their clothing is a whole different issue. Whether they were "trying to incite violence" is not relevant. Some girls here wear clothing that could be seen as "trying to incite sexual assault"... I guess they should be forced to cover up?

Essentially they are being forced to honor a Mexican holiday, in America, by forceful repression of their disagreement. Shit like this needs to be nipped in the bud.

I didn't tiptoe around a damn thing...did you even read my post? Go read it, please.

[bedub1]

If Mexican students wore Mexican flags on the Fourth of July, would they get sent home? No, because the 4th of July is a holiday here in the US. Whats my point? I have none. Do they have a Fourth of July in the UK? Yes, but they don't celebrate it.

[john9blue]

I didn't tiptoe around a damn thing...did you even read my post? Go read it, please.

I did, and it went something like this:

I don't like when people wear the flag, even though they are allowed to. But that's not relevant...

I KNOW the boys were trying to cause trouble, even though the article says they wore American flags on another day. But I just know they wanted violence, instead of just to express their views in a legal "fashion". I just know.

I didn't read the whole article so I missed the last sentence. But these boys are guilty before proven innocent, even though they didn't break any rules. If they had done this before then it changes the WHOLE THING and makes it perfectly okay.

Is this how you discipline your own students Woody?

[Woodruff]

I didn't tiptoe around a damn thing...did you even read my post? Go read it, please.

I did, and it went something like this:

I don't like when people wear the flag, even though they are allowed to. But that's not relevant...

I KNOW the boys were trying to cause trouble, even though the article says they wore American flags on another day. But I just know they wanted violence, instead of just to express their views in a legal "fashion". I just know.

I didn't read the whole article so I missed the last sentence. But these boys are guilty before proven innocent, even though they didn't break any rules. If they had done this before then it changes the WHOLE THING and makes it perfectly okay.

Is this how you discipline your own students Woody?

Your statements here don't in any way represent the statements that I made, so you can stop lying now, John. Try again, with a bit more objectivity and truthfulness, and perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion.

[Army of GOD]

If Mexican students wore Mexican flags on the Fourth of July, would they get sent home? No, because the 4th of July is a holiday here in the US. Whats my point? I have none. Do they have a Fourth of July in the UK? Yes, but they don't celebrate it.

LoL


And I just read that article (only watched the video from the other thread before) and you have to admit the incredible bias in that article. High School students like that are very transparent (I have had good experience with a lot of them, seeing as I'm friends with a lot of the same sort of kids).

So they came back to school wearing another American flag tee-shirt? Whoopdee-f******-doo. Any 3 year old could come up with that sort of logic. It in no way states that they normally wear "American flag" clothing and it's obvious that they all colluded the day before and over-wear the flag.

[john9blue]

You didn't answer my last question Woody, which is what I'm really concerned about. I don't care if some random disagrees with me on the Internet, but if that random actually has the power to do these kinds of things himself... then I have a problem.

And why not point out significant differences between your post and the words I put in your mouth? I maintain that there are none.

You need to realize that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between expressing your views and inciting violence.

[Woodruff]

You didn't answer my last question Woody, which is what I'm really concerned about. I don't care if some random disagrees with me on the Internet, but if that random actually has the power to do these kinds of things himself... then I have a problem.

And why not point out significant differences between your post and the words I put in your mouth? I maintain that there are none.

You need to realize that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between expressing your views and inciting violence.

You haven't made a point that is worthy of my responding to. When you want to have an honest discussion, then try again. Until then, you aren't worth the time.

[jonesthecurl]

If Mexican students wore Mexican flags on the Fourth of July, would they get sent home? No, because the 4th of July is a holiday here in the US. Whats my point? I have none. Do they have a Fourth of July in the UK? Yes, but they don't celebrate it.

The Uk goes straight from the 3rd to the 5th July.

[Woodruff]

If Mexican students wore Mexican flags on the Fourth of July, would they get sent home? No, because the 4th of July is a holiday here in the US. Whats my point? I have none. Do they have a Fourth of July in the UK? Yes, but they don't celebrate it.

The Uk goes straight from the 3rd to the 5th July.

That's always been one of my favorite riddles (does it even qualify as a riddle?). Seems like none of my students ever get it right the first time I ask it.

[john9blue]

You haven't made a point that is worthy of my responding to. When you want to have an honest discussion, then try again. Until then, you aren't worth the time.

I see... not only do your whims dictate what is and isn't okay for students to wear, but they also dictate what arguments are and are not valid. Maybe when I grow up I'll know everything there is to know in the world, like you.

Here's a question then: where do you draw the line between "inciting violence" and "expressing your views"? And whose fault is it in both cases if violence does occur?

[Woodruff]

You haven't made a point that is worthy of my responding to. When you want to have an honest discussion, then try again. Until then, you aren't worth the time.

I see... not only do your whims dictate what is and isn't okay for students to wear, but they also dictate what arguments are and are not valid.

Intentionally misrepresenting my statements is absolutely not a valid argument, you're at least correct about that.

Maybe when I grow up I'll know everything there is to know in the world, like you.

Maybe someday you'll just grow up.

Here's a question then: where do you draw the line between "inciting violence" and "expressing your views"? And whose fault is it in both cases if violence does occur?

In the situation of a high school, the school doesn't have much choice at all but to fall under the realm of student safety. That is a fact.

[john9blue]

In the situation of a high school, the school doesn't have much choice at all but to fall under the realm of student safety. That is a fact.

Don't you realize how flimsy this argument is? You could ban forks and knives at lunchtime. You could ban Christian kids from wearing crosses and Muslim kids from wearing turbans. You could ban scissors. In LA, you could ban clothing that was primarily red or blue.

If the students are so unstable as to start violence over something like this (and afaik they never even HAVE, so your argument has no basis in fact) then the problems with the school run much deeper than this.

Finally, if the kids conspired to do this beforehand, don't you think they knew exactly what they were getting into? They were bullied earlier in the day and did nothing about it, because they were expecting it and could take it.

Your argument fails once again on several levels. You can go ahead and claim like you always do that my arguments this time "aren't worthy" of you, or that I "didn't read" something, or that I "lack comprehension", because I don't think someone like you is ever going to be convinced that they're wrong. You are exactly like my parents.

[Phatscotty]

Obama administration defies congressional subpoena on Fort Hood documents

After days of negotiations, the Pentagon and Justice Department informed a Senate committee that they would not comply with congressional subpoenas to share investigative records from the Nov. 5 shootings

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042703170.html

What are they trying to hide this time? No one truly believes this is a matter of national security, unless that is defined as security for corrupt national officials.

When it comes to the military, there is little that isn't national security-related.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that this guy is somehow going to get off or be shown innocent. What the government is doing is working on the entire system. That IS military business. Assessing the psycology of soldiers has absolute security import. This guy is not going to get away, but the military should reassess its psycologic evaluations and such as a result and do it without having to explain and justify it to the rest of us.

No, what we have here a piece of the puzzle that fits with some of the posters theories on the topic of the Butcher of Fort Hood. Also, to bolster my previous opinions that the administration is playing politics with the massacre

[Woodruff]

In the situation of a high school, the school doesn't have much choice at all but to fall under the realm of student safety. That is a fact.

Don't you realize how flimsy this argument is?

You asked who would be responsible if violence broke out...the fact is that the high school administration would be held responsible. That's how it is.

You could ban forks and knives at lunchtime. You could ban Christian kids from wearing crosses and Muslim kids from wearing turbans. You could ban scissors. In LA, you could ban clothing that was primarily red or blue.

In many schools, forks and knives are banned (sporks are used), as are any but safety scissors. And in MANY places (not just LA), red and blue worn in certain ways absolutely is banned.

If the students are so unstable as to start violence over something like this (and afaik they never even HAVE, so your argument has no basis in fact) then the problems with the school run much deeper than this.

I don't know the dynamics of this particular school, nor do you.

Finally, if the kids conspired to do this beforehand, don't you think they knew exactly what they were getting into?

Quite possibly...and if so, then they surely knew the repercussions of their actions.

Your argument fails once again on several levels. You can go ahead and claim like you always do that my arguments this time "aren't worthy" of you, or that I "didn't read" something, or that I "lack comprehension", because I don't think someone like you is ever going to be convinced that they're wrong. You are exactly like my parents.

I respond with statements like that when they accurately apply. If you don't like them, then don't make statements to which they would apply. It's really quite simple. If I sound exactly like your parents, there is probably a reason for that as well, though I'm quite sure it's one that you won't allow yourself to recognize. But hey, you're in good company with bradleybadly, so you've got that going for you.

[Phatscotty]

What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?

[muy_thaiguy]

What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?

Throw them in the water. If they sink, they are legal. If they do not sink, they are illegal.

[Woodruff]

What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?

In my personal view...if someone is involved in a crime, a cursory background check is done (looking for prior arrests, etc...)...this is the appropriate time to check residency, as well (I would hope this is already done at this point, but who knows). As well, if someone "blows the whistle" on an employer for hiring illegal immigrants, then when that business is confronted, that is also an appropriate time to check residency. Basically, when there is some reason to do so outside of "whim".

[Phatscotty]

What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?

Throw them in the water. If they sink, they are legal. If they do not sink, they are illegal.

ok, midevil witch hunt style.....good good...

[Phatscotty]

What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?

In my personal view...if someone is involved in a crime, a cursory background check is done (looking for prior arrests, etc...)...this is the appropriate time to check residency, as well (I would hope this is already done at this point, but who knows). As well, if someone "blows the whistle" on an employer for hiring illegal immigrants, then when that business is confronted, that is also an appropriate time to check residency. Basically, when there is some reason to do so outside of "whim".

Sounds good to me. May I ask where your opinion differs with Arizona law?

[PLAYER57832]

In the situation of a high school, the school doesn't have much choice at all but to fall under the realm of student safety. That is a fact.

Don't you realize how flimsy this argument is? You could ban forks and knives at lunchtime. You could ban Christian kids from wearing crosses and Muslim kids from wearing turbans. You could ban scissors. In LA, you could ban clothing that was primarily red or blue.

And districts do exactly these things. Not saying I disagree with you, but I did want to point that out.

If the students are so unstable as to start violence over something like this (and afaik they never even HAVE, so your argument has no basis in fact) then the problems with the school run much deeper than this.

Sorry, john, but my mother used to substitute in Bay Area schools. They get into fights over a lot less than this. BUT, the question is what is the correct response? To say "OK, the flag is offensive, we have to get rid of it", or "hey, these ones who are angry over this need to learn to deal with it?"

[PLAYER57832]

What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?

In my personal view...if someone is involved in a crime, a cursory background check is done (looking for prior arrests, etc...)...this is the appropriate time to check residency, as well (I would hope this is already done at this point, but who knows). As well, if someone "blows the whistle" on an employer for hiring illegal immigrants, then when that business is confronted, that is also an appropriate time to check residency. Basically, when there is some reason to do so outside of "whim".

Sounds good to me. May I ask where your opinion differs with Arizona law?

Arizona law makes no requirement that someone be involved in any other crime before a check is done.