sad Days for america

[thegreekdog]

I have an idea... I know, it may sound strange... let's debate the actual issues here instead of whether one person is intelligent or another person is egotistical. As far as I know Flame Wars has gone the way of the dodo.

[bradleybadly]

Yes, fake patriotism bothers me a great deal.

It bugs me too

[Woodruff]

And you can save us all your "I'm a veteran" routine. When it comes to this issue, I give you about as much credit for being a veteran as Marty Weithaupt or Benedict Arnold.

Because I don't agree with you...well, that's certainly a great point for not questioning your intelligence, right?

Did you manually change the author of that quote to targetman?

Whoops! I appear to have, but definitely not on purpose. I apologize targetman...didn't mean to do that. It should have been beezer. I'll go fix it now. Thanks, AOG.

[Woodruff]

Your post wasn't about dissent...it was about fragging me.

Perhaps I should apologize for bullying you. And now you try to play the role of martyr. It was you who fragged those kids in your opening post.

Really? I fragged them in my opening post, did I? Did you even READ my opening post? As I recall, I even stated that if those boys had worn the flag T-shirts at other times, then that changes the situation entirely...that's fragging them?

Somehow, you have the omniscient attribute of being able to determine the motivations behind these kids in wearing their clothes.

No, I do put some level of trust in the administrators who are far more familiar with the situation than any of us are.

It couldn't be that they simply wanted to wear them to express any patriotic feelings. It has to be their motivation to incite violence.

The evidence would seem to point in that direction, yes. For the reasons I've stated.

Because you only think that freedom of speech should pertain to those who agree with you.

Nah, it happens plenty here. The difference is when a self-righteous person like yourself equates disagreement as lack of intelligence.

I don't at all equate disagreement as lack of intelligence. I disagree with people ALL THE FREAKING TIME in these fora and their intelligence level never comes up. I wonder what the difference might be between those situations?

Then this tactic is repeated over and over again as if its self perpetuation makes the user (yourself) correct by merely claiming it.

Many times, the continued action by those I'm referring to is the self-perpetuation making it correct.

So you also believe that you can base my job performance on a few posts in an internet forum?

Pretty much, but it wouldn't just be a few.

That's a pretty ignorant way of looking at things, quite frankly.

Yes, fake patriotism bothers me a great deal. I much prefer the real thing. Do you have any of that?

No, I just participate for the BBQs and fireworks. Occasionally, I like to incite violence by listening to God Bless America or The Stars And Stripes Forever.

See, I didn't think you wanted to seriously discuss the issue, and you're making that clear. Thanks...move on.

Because I don't agree with you...well, that's certainly a great point for not questioning your intelligence, right?

Because you try to shield yourself by invoking your veteran status. You probably thought that would give you cover.

I don't in any way try to shield myself by invoking my veteran status. PLEASE, PLEASE point to where I've tried to shield myself by invoking my veteran status. Go ahead...you may proceed now. Thanks.

[Woodruff]

Just saw this on FOX NEWS and the beautiful Megan Kelly was right on target. Your Constitutional rights do not end when you walk into a school. You can not pre-emptively send students home because of what you might perceive as instigation. Woody would have hated her taring apart his argument.
And as for it being disrespectful. Give me a break, you wanna-be patriot! I have a flag on the right shoulder of my uniform. Even though I am saddened that people of this great nation had to die to give you the right to spew your garbage.

Which Constitutional right is being abrogated here?

Freedom of expression. Any further questions should be directed to Megan Kelly.... the lawyer.... the beauty queen.

I don't recall "freedom of expression" being in the Bill of Rights, though I suppose it might fall as an adjunct to freedom of speech. That being said, the protection against our freedom of speech has to do with actions by Congress and state legislatures, Jay...not just anyone that seems to want to. It's a fact that in many areas, our freedom of speech is quite limited and it has been supported many, many times that in high schools, freedom of speech does not particularly apply. Would you care to try again?

[silvanricky]

I have an idea... I know, it may sound strange... let's debate the actual issues here instead of whether one person is intelligent or another person is egotistical. As far as I know Flame Wars has gone the way of the dodo.

I'm not against that, Greek. But don't expect people to not react to this kind of sheer arrogance by Woodruff. It's repetitive and transcends whatever subject is being discussed. People here are sick of it. Nobody can stop him from being an arrogant asshole with one of his condescending "i'm so much more intellectual than you" lines, but we shouldn't be stopped from calling him out on it either.

If he's doing it on purpose just to start trouble, then he should at least get a warning for intentional trolling/baiting. He can't have it both ways where he acts like this and then crys foul like he's a victim of personal attacks. The standard needs to be applied to him as well.

[Woodruff]

I have an idea... I know, it may sound strange... let's debate the actual issues here instead of whether one person is intelligent or another person is egotistical. As far as I know Flame Wars has gone the way of the dodo.

I'm not against that, Greek. But don't expect people to not react to this kind of sheer arrogance by Woodruff. It's repetitive and transcends whatever subject is being discussed. People here are sick of it. Nobody can stop him from being an arrogant asshole with one of his condescending "i'm so much more intellectual than you" lines, but we shouldn't be stopped from calling him out on it either.

If he's doing it on purpose just to start trouble, then he should at least get a warning for intentional trolling/baiting. He can't have it both ways where he acts like this and then crys foul like he's a victim of personal attacks. It goes both ways, greek.

How about you try discussing the issue, silvanricky? So far in this thread, you haven't even tried to - ALL you've done is directly attack me. Or perhaps you've overlooked that...why is that, silvanricky? As you say...you can't have it both ways. But I'm sure it's all my fault that you haven't tried discussing the issue, right silvanricky?

Hell, I was directly attacked with the following: "You're more of a disgusting individual than I originally thought. f*ck you, Woodruff." for simply making a very basic statement that didn't carry this "sheer arrogance" that you're speaking of. How do you figure that one, silvanricky? You actually think I was baiting and trolling there, silvanricky?

[demonfork]

Woodruff...How can you continue to side withe the principles decision and claim that it was within his authoritative right to do so as a "judgment call", when the district already publicly stated that the principles decision was outside of the established rules for these types of situations?

[Woodruff]

Woodruff...How can you continue to side withe the principles decision and claim that it was within his authoritative right to do so as a "judgment call", when the district already publicly stated that the principles decision was outside of the established rules for these types of situations?

If you'll read all of my posts, you will have seen that I stated that the school's principal, in making that judgement call, was certainly under the potential for retraction/reprimand by his superiors...that's what judgement calls are all about. My point is that the principal is right in making a judgement call...whether it is that one in particular or not. I support his authority in doing so...it's a definite part of his job. That has been my position from the beginning.

I further have stated that I certainly can understand his reasons for coming to the conclusion/taking the action that he did. I have EVEN STATED THAT I CONSIDERED THE TURNING INSIDE-OUT OF THE T-SHIRTS TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO THE FLAG. But all of that is overlooked by those on the other side because they emotionally jump in with "save the Americans!" rhetoric without reading what I'm actually typing.

[demonfork]

Woodruff...How can you continue to side withe the principles decision and claim that it was within his authoritative right to do so as a "judgment call", when the district already publicly stated that the principles decision was outside of the established rules for these types of situations?

If you'll read all of my posts, you will have seen that I stated that the school's principal, in making that judgement call, was certainly under the potential for retraction/reprimand by his superiors...that's what judgement calls are all about. My point is that the principal is right in making a judgement call...whether it is that one in particular or not. I support his authority in doing so...it's a definite part of his job. That has been my position from the beginning.

I further have stated that I certainly can understand his reasons for coming to the conclusion/taking the action that he did. I have EVEN STATED THAT I CONSIDERED THE TURNING INSIDE-OUT OF THE T-SHIRTS TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO THE FLAG. But all of that is overlooked by those on the other side because they emotionally jump in with "save the Americans!" rhetoric without reading what I'm actually typing.

But the problem here is that it wasn't a judgment call, the principle ignored the established rules and went outside of the wiggle room that he has to make any type of judgment call. When someone is given the authority to make judgment calls that does not mean that they can decide to break established rules as part of making these judgment calls.

It's like when I went to traffic court recently, the judge stated to the courtroom that had the authority to reduce fines on a case by case basis based solely on his judgment but he also stated to everyone in the courtroom that certain infractions, like running a red light, were mandatory fines and that he did not have the authority to reduce those types of fines for anyone regardless of the situation. He could not use his power to make judgment calls to usurp already established rules and guidelines.

The principle did not have the right to make a judgment call in this matter, he ignored established guidelines that were specifically put into place to deal with these kind of dress coded issues. Had the principle of Live Oaks simply followed the existing rules and guidelines pertaining to this situation, those kids would have never been sent home and we would not be having this "debate".

[Woodruff]

Woodruff...How can you continue to side withe the principles decision and claim that it was within his authoritative right to do so as a "judgment call", when the district already publicly stated that the principles decision was outside of the established rules for these types of situations?

If you'll read all of my posts, you will have seen that I stated that the school's principal, in making that judgement call, was certainly under the potential for retraction/reprimand by his superiors...that's what judgement calls are all about. My point is that the principal is right in making a judgement call...whether it is that one in particular or not. I support his authority in doing so...it's a definite part of his job. That has been my position from the beginning.

I further have stated that I certainly can understand his reasons for coming to the conclusion/taking the action that he did. I have EVEN STATED THAT I CONSIDERED THE TURNING INSIDE-OUT OF THE T-SHIRTS TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO THE FLAG. But all of that is overlooked by those on the other side because they emotionally jump in with "save the Americans!" rhetoric without reading what I'm actually typing.

But the problem here is that it wasn't a judgment call, the principle ignored the established rules and went outside of the wiggle room that he has to make any type of judgment call. When someone is given the authority to make judgment calls that does not mean that they can decide to break established rules as part of making these judgment calls.

It's like when I went to traffic court recently, the judge stated to the courtroom that had the authority to reduce fines on a case by case basis based solely on his judgment but he also stated to everyone in the courtroom that certain infractions, like running a red light, were mandatory fines and that he did not have the authority to reduce those types of fines for anyone regardless of the situation. He could not use his power to make judgment calls to usurp already established rules and guidelines.

The principle did not have the right to make a judgment call in this matter, he ignored established guidelines that were specifically put into place to deal with these kind of dress coded issues. Had the principle of Live Oaks simply followed the existing rules and guidelines pertaining to this situation, those kids would have never been sent home and we would not be having this "debate".

I'd be interested in seeing these established guidelines, as this is the first I've heard of them...they haven't been mentioned in the several articles I've seen on the subject. Everything I have seen has referred to "disagreeing with the school's interpretation". I'm not saying they don't exist, I'd just like to have you point me to them. It would be additional information I haven't had.

[Phatscotty]

some people can admit when they were wrong.

[b.k. barunt]

Woodruff...How can you continue to side withe the principles decision and claim that it was within his authoritative right to do so as a "judgment call", when the district already publicly stated that the principles decision was outside of the established rules for these types of situations?

If you'll read all of my posts, you will have seen that I stated that the school's principal, in making that judgement call, was certainly under the potential for retraction/reprimand by his superiors...that's what judgement calls are all about. My point is that the principal is right in making a judgement call...whether it is that one in particular or not. I support his authority in doing so...it's a definite part of his job. That has been my position from the beginning.

I further have stated that I certainly can understand his reasons for coming to the conclusion/taking the action that he did. I have EVEN STATED THAT I CONSIDERED THE TURNING INSIDE-OUT OF THE T-SHIRTS TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO THE FLAG. But all of that is overlooked by those on the other side because they emotionally jump in with "save the Americans!" rhetoric without reading what I'm actually typing.

But the problem here is that it wasn't a judgment call, the principle ignored the established rules and went outside of the wiggle room that he has to make any type of judgment call. When someone is given the authority to make judgment calls that does not mean that they can decide to break established rules as part of making these judgment calls.

It's like when I went to traffic court recently, the judge stated to the courtroom that had the authority to reduce fines on a case by case basis based solely on his judgment but he also stated to everyone in the courtroom that certain infractions, like running a red light, were mandatory fines and that he did not have the authority to reduce those types of fines for anyone regardless of the situation. He could not use his power to make judgment calls to usurp already established rules and guidelines.

The principle did not have the right to make a judgment call in this matter, he ignored established guidelines that were specifically put into place to deal with these kind of dress coded issues. Had the principle of Live Oaks simply followed the existing rules and guidelines pertaining to this situation, those kids would have never been sent home and we would not be having this "debate".

I'd be interested in seeing these established guidelines, as this is the first I've heard of them...they haven't been mentioned in the several articles I've seen on the subject. Everything I have seen has referred to "disagreeing with the school's interpretation". I'm not saying they don't exist, I'd just like to have you point me to them. It would be additional information I haven't had.

Aw for fucksake woodruff, every school has well established guidelines as far as dress code is concerned. As a teacher you know this so your dishonesty here is obvious. You don't have the balls to admit that you're wrong so you attempt to cloud the issue - unfortunately you aren't smart enough to do it without making yourself look like a jackass.


Honibaz

[jay_a2j]

some people can admit when they were wrong.

and then we have Woody.

[Woodruff]

some people can admit when they were wrong.

I agree...I've done so several times in these fora. Were you referring to someone else?

[Woodruff]

Woodruff...How can you continue to side withe the principles decision and claim that it was within his authoritative right to do so as a "judgment call", when the district already publicly stated that the principles decision was outside of the established rules for these types of situations?

If you'll read all of my posts, you will have seen that I stated that the school's principal, in making that judgement call, was certainly under the potential for retraction/reprimand by his superiors...that's what judgement calls are all about. My point is that the principal is right in making a judgement call...whether it is that one in particular or not. I support his authority in doing so...it's a definite part of his job. That has been my position from the beginning.

I further have stated that I certainly can understand his reasons for coming to the conclusion/taking the action that he did. I have EVEN STATED THAT I CONSIDERED THE TURNING INSIDE-OUT OF THE T-SHIRTS TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO THE FLAG. But all of that is overlooked by those on the other side because they emotionally jump in with "save the Americans!" rhetoric without reading what I'm actually typing.

But the problem here is that it wasn't a judgment call, the principle ignored the established rules and went outside of the wiggle room that he has to make any type of judgment call. When someone is given the authority to make judgment calls that does not mean that they can decide to break established rules as part of making these judgment calls.

It's like when I went to traffic court recently, the judge stated to the courtroom that had the authority to reduce fines on a case by case basis based solely on his judgment but he also stated to everyone in the courtroom that certain infractions, like running a red light, were mandatory fines and that he did not have the authority to reduce those types of fines for anyone regardless of the situation. He could not use his power to make judgment calls to usurp already established rules and guidelines.

The principle did not have the right to make a judgment call in this matter, he ignored established guidelines that were specifically put into place to deal with these kind of dress coded issues. Had the principle of Live Oaks simply followed the existing rules and guidelines pertaining to this situation, those kids would have never been sent home and we would not be having this "debate".

I'd be interested in seeing these established guidelines, as this is the first I've heard of them...they haven't been mentioned in the several articles I've seen on the subject. Everything I have seen has referred to "disagreeing with the school's interpretation". I'm not saying they don't exist, I'd just like to have you point me to them. It would be additional information I haven't had.

Aw for fucksake woodruff, every school has well established guidelines as far as dress code is concerned. As a teacher you know this so your dishonesty here is obvious. You don't have the balls to admit that you're wrong so you attempt to cloud the issue - unfortunately you aren't smart enough to do it without making yourself look like a jackass.
Honibaz

You don't have these rules either then, right? Because so far, nobody has produced them and even the district has only said that they disagreed with the school's interpretation, in every article I've seen to this point. Can someone produce them, please? I'm not attempting to cloud anything, but it would seem that you want to cloud everything with personal attacks.

[Woodruff]

some people can admit when they were wrong.

and then we have Woody.

I've admitted to being wrong more often in these fora than you have, Jay. Guaranteed.

[Woodruff]

Yeah, actually, funny how the culture changes, when Abbie Hoffman first did this, it was incredibly controversial and "offensive" to many. Now it's often considered patriotic for girls to wear American flag bikinis.

I had apparently missed this...yes, the U.S. Flag Code (which is NOT a law that imposes any sort of penalties) states that "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.". This is why I consider things like the bikinis and the T-Shirts in question to be disrespectful toward the flag. I've heard the argument that designs on clothing are not actually "the flag", which seems to be the common belief (of those who are even aware of the U.S. Flag Code)...with which I disagree. And so did many, back then, clearly. And many still do, I would add.

[DangerBoy]

I have an idea... I know, it may sound strange... let's debate the actual issues here instead of whether one person is intelligent or another person is egotistical. As far as I know Flame Wars has gone the way of the dodo.

Then I renew my call to bring it back. Either that or have a private forum where people can flame. We'll see if Woodruff can be more creative than you lack reading comprehension skills.....Nah-nah-nah-nah-naaahhhh-nah!

This post pretty much sums it up

And woodruff, I could care less which side of this issue you're on, that's less and less the point of this thread. It has now become all about you personally attacking everybody's intelligence because you feel you are so much better than them. If you were actually intelligent, you'd realize that insulting someone else's intelligence is beneath you and unnecessary. More likely is that you're just a troll.

[Woodruff]

I have an idea... I know, it may sound strange... let's debate the actual issues here instead of whether one person is intelligent or another person is egotistical. As far as I know Flame Wars has gone the way of the dodo.

Then I renew my call to bring it back. Either that or have a private forum where people can flame. We'll see if Woodruff can be more creative than you lack reading comprehension skills.....Nah-nah-nah-nah-naaahhhh-nah!

The only time I ever went into FlameWars was when a thread was re-directed into that forum and I mistakenly followed it. That wouldn't change. I don't see the point of it.

This post pretty much sums it up

And woodruff, I could care less which side of this issue you're on, that's less and less the point of this thread. It has now become all about you personally attacking everybody's intelligence because you feel you are so much better than them. If you were actually intelligent, you'd realize that insulting someone else's intelligence is beneath you and unnecessary. More likely is that you're just a troll.

Sums what up? You people are the ones who have made this thread about me, not I.

[DangerBoy]

all of that is overlooked by those on the other side because they emotionally jump in with "save the Americans!" rhetoric without reading what I'm actually typing.

Because you emotionally jumped all over the kids by stating that they "annoyed the hell out of you" and that they "pissed you off" for wearing the flag as part of their clothing. However, that's your right to be "pissed off". It also the right of the boys who wore the depictions of the flag to not be "pissed off" but rather "proud". The whole point of this is that the kids were exercising their first amendment rights as long as they wore nothing obscene or infringed on the rights of other students. Nothing they did infringed on anybody else's rights (maybe some feelings were hurt but nothing else).

You then proceeded to judge them by saying that they were "frankly trying to instigate trouble". You said this with absolutely no evidence. But that didn't stop you from judging their intentions. You then built upon that accusation by claiming that they were trying to "incite violence". You had absolutely no evidence to back this up. You then attempted to leave yourself some wiggle room by saying that if they had worn these clothes before it changed the situation. But that was all AFTER you had already judged them in your second paragraph.

(I underlined and bolded part of that for you especially, Woody. I don't want you to have any problems with your reading comprehension skills)

I just saw an interview with mothers of 2 of the boys. The kids wore the clothing previously on other school days.

[clapper011]

keep the discussions civil and I won't lock it up eh.

[Woodruff]

all of that is overlooked by those on the other side because they emotionally jump in with "save the Americans!" rhetoric without reading what I'm actually typing.

Because you emotionally jumped all over the kids by stating that they "annoyed the hell out of you" and that they "pissed you off" for wearing the flag as part of their clothing.

So that causes everyone to attack my person? Really...that's all it takes to set you folks off...my dislike of disrespect for the flag? My God, if I start talking about how I hate flag-burning, that should really set everyone off frothing at the mouth.

You then proceeded to judge them by saying that they were "frankly trying to instigate trouble". You said this with absolutely no evidence.

Absolutely no evidence? Really? None at all, you say?

The fact that they'd never worn that type of clothing previously, and decided to do so on Cinco de Mayo is "absolutely no evidence" in your mind?

You then built upon that accusation by claiming that they were trying to "incite violence". You had absolutely no evidence to back this up. You then attempted to leave yourself some wiggle room by saying that if they had worn these clothes before it changed the situation. But that was all AFTER you had already judged them in your second paragraph.

So what you're saying is that my entire post is irrelevant, simply because you didn't like the first part of it?

I just saw an interview with mothers of 2 of the boys. The kids wore the clothing previously on other school days.

That goes counter to all the other witnesses, from everything I've read on the situation. I'm not saying they're lying necessarily, but it's certainly possible that the parents may be understandably falling on the side of their children in this. Don't you think that's a reasonable possibility?

[deronimo]

Now now, people! Woodfuck is just sticking up for his fellow comrades. We shouldn't be tolerating Americans expressing their first amendment rights, but we should be tolerating this:

Has it really come to this!! This is a pretty intense statement. I don't see how the pro-illegal immigrant side can justify that.

[Woodruff]

Now now, people! Woodfuck is just sticking up for his fellow comrades. We shouldn't be tolerating Americans expressing their first amendment rights, but we should be tolerating this:

Has it really come to this!! This is a pretty intense statement. I don't see how the pro-illegal immigrant side can justify that.

I don't believe anyone is. Though certainly some around here are attempting to further that lie.