Superintendent warns against 'inappropriate comments'

[Danno 1,228]

Can I just ask the Republicans in the crowd where you were when we were being admonished not to criticize Bush during a time of war? Remember that whole "if you don't support the President then you hate the troops" business? I happen to agree that nobody, including the President, is above criticism, but it sure seems like not that long ago when you guys were singing a different tune.

"admonished" is the key word here.

Nothing wrong with that. What we are talking about in this case is making law or policy to forbid any talk which is critical of Obama (and Bush).

Perhaps you can name any public law or policy in the past which forbids critical / derogatory remarks about the war or Bush? (since you brought it up)

One can't help but note that the the Bush-bashing has gone on for a full three years, finally in his last few days in office, he too is covered by this "rule of civility".

Has no one asked, why it took so long?

In.

A.

School.

I don't know what school you went to but mine actually enforced codes of discipline - and (surprise?) students didn't exactly have all the rights that independent adults do.

Imagine that.

Yeah, I agree with that.... so why so the NEW rule now and not before?

And what law or policy forbid being critical of Bush or the war?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Danno,

Because Bush was a #######.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't know what school you went to but mine actually enforced codes of discipline - and (surprise?) students didn't exactly have all the rights that independent adults do.

You shoulda sued.

perhaps.

Its hilarious to me that people are up in arms about this story. There's nothing particularly scandalous about it.

Wingnuts want to be offended.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Wingnuts want to be offended.

Which brings us right back to our Ann Coulter conversation.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno,

Because Bush was a #######.

So this policy has about a nine month expiration date and then it's open season On Obama?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Can I just ask the Republicans in the crowd where you were when we were being admonished not to criticize Bush during a time of war? Remember that whole "if you don't support the President then you hate the troops" business? I happen to agree that nobody, including the President, is above criticism, but it sure seems like not that long ago when you guys were singing a different tune.

"admonished" is the key word here.

Nothing wrong with that. What we are talking about in this case is making law or policy to forbid any talk which is critical of Obama (and Bush).

Perhaps you can name any public law or policy in the past which forbids critical / derogatory remarks about the war or Bush? (since you brought it up)

One can't help but note that the the Bush-bashing has gone on for a full three years, finally in his last few days in office, he too is covered by this "rule of civility".

Has no one asked, why it took so long?

In.

A.

School.

I don't know what school you went to but mine actually enforced codes of discipline - and (surprise?) students didn't exactly have all the rights that independent adults do.

Imagine that.

Yeah, I agree with that.... so why so the NEW rule now and not before?

And what law or policy forbid being critical of Bush or the war?

Reading between the lines the article seems to suggest that there was some trouble on campus after the election result was announced.

Likely they didn't address politics before because it wasn't an issue then.

Danno,

Because Bush was a #######.

So this policy has about a nine month expiration date and then it's open season On Obama?

Anything that causes racial tension or other unrest on a school campus - in a way that messes up the learning environment, a (good) school authority will take issue with.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Anything that causes racial tension or other unrest on a school campus - in a way that messes up the learning environment, a (good) school authority will take issue with.

Yes, but how they deal with it is what distinguishes loser liberals like you and Obama from awesome totally cool conservatives like the wingnuts posting in this thread.

The liberal way is to admonish, wag a finger, make a rule.

The conservative solution? Deploy the 2nd Amendment. Introduce deterrence into the playground. I bet little Billy won't get bullied if he's packing heat.

Just think about it.

No wait, I forgot. You're a lib! You don't think!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Anything that causes racial tension or other unrest on a school campus - in a way that messes up the learning environment, a (good) school authority will take issue with.

Yes, but how they deal with it is what distinguishes loser liberals like you and Obama from awesome totally cool conservatives like the wingnuts posting in this thread.

The liberal way is to admonish, wag a finger, make a rule.

The conservative solution? Deploy the 2nd Amendment. Introduce deterrence into the playground. I bet little Billy won't get bullied if he's packing heat.

Just think about it.

No wait, I forgot. You're a lib! You don't think!

Yes I agree. Screw that "don't talk to strangers" thing parents have been teaching their kids for decades. On his/her first day of school every child should be given one of those compact purse pistols (and a matching lunch box) so that they can gun down Pedophiles and postal workers on suicide rampages.

Nothing like a bit of personal responsibility. In this new world - if a kid is abused its their own fault for letting it happen!

Edited January 20, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

Not only did Danno not read the article (which makes clear exactly what type of behaviour/commentary is not tolerated in this school), he also failed to read the first page of this thread where these points are already addressed. Still, feel free to live in a seething stream of ignorance.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not only did Danno not read the article (which makes clear exactly what type of behaviour/commentary is not tolerated in this school), he also failed to read the first page of this thread where these points are already addressed. Still, feel free to live in a seething stream of ignorance.

It just proves that half of these threads have little substance whatsoever, and are just excuses for the wingnuts who want something to be outraged by.

There's plenty of things to be outraged about - yet here at least its always about some irrelevant guff.

[Danno 1,228]

Not only did Danno not read the article (which makes clear exactly what type of behaviour/commentary is not tolerated in this school), he also failed to read the first page of this thread where these points are already addressed. Still, feel free to live in a seething stream of ignorance.

It's not exactly "seething" is perhaps over doing it a bit.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would hope so. It wouldn't do to be completely divorced from reality (and rationality).