Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
https://uwsboard.com/
Nah. Just douchebags like yourself support children being out if control. You're not a conservative and so don't get it.BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.
Kid calls government official, uses bad language.
Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.
Government officials suspend kid from government led education.
That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.
Kid calls government official, uses bad language.
Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.
Government officials suspend kid from government led education.
That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
what adult supports a minor calling another adult and cussing them out for anything? common decency ya knowBG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.
Kid calls government official, uses bad language.
Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.
Government officials suspend kid from government led education.
That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
cwtcr hokie wrote:what adult supports a minor calling another adult and cussing them out for anything? common decency ya knowBG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.
Kid calls government official, uses bad language.
Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.
Government officials suspend kid from government led education.
That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
Psst. He's a minor. Minors are supposed to be under the supervision of custodians("big brother"), and part of the school/custodians' job is to make sure they don't grow up to be little shirts who call up adults and swear at them.BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.
Kid calls government official, uses bad language.
Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.
Government officials suspend kid from government led education.
That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
Actually they characterized them as British, hence the conflict.ip_law-hokie wrote: The British would have characterized our founders as lacking common decency.
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.CFB Apologist wrote:He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.
Kid calls government official, uses bad language.
Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.
Government officials suspend kid from government led education.
That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.HokieFanDC wrote:Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.CFB Apologist wrote:He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.
Kid calls government official, uses bad language.
Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.
Government officials suspend kid from government led education.
That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
That's one of your better ones!USN_Hokie wrote:John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.HokieFanDC wrote:Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.CFB Apologist wrote:He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.
Kid calls government official, uses bad language.
Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.
Government officials suspend kid from government led education.
That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
It’s good to see USN acknowledge that there are limits to the bill of rights.HokieFanDC wrote:That's one of your better ones!USN_Hokie wrote:John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.HokieFanDC wrote:Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.CFB Apologist wrote:He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.
Kid calls government official, uses bad language.
Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.
Government officials suspend kid from government led education.
That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
1. That's not an argument.HokieFanDC wrote:That's one of your better ones!USN_Hokie wrote:John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.HokieFanDC wrote:Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.CFB Apologist wrote:He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.
Kid calls government official, uses bad language.
Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.
Government officials suspend kid from government led education.
That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
Correct. I wasn't arguing, I was laughing at the comparison of murder (an illegal act) to cursing (not an illegal act). That's what theUSN_Hokie wrote:1. That's not an argument.HokieFanDC wrote:That's one of your better ones!USN_Hokie wrote:John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.HokieFanDC wrote:Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.CFB Apologist wrote:He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.BG Hokie wrote:It does reek of an annoying big brother situation.
Kid calls government official, uses bad language.
Government official who had the horror of listening to bad language calls government officials in charge of kid's education.
Government officials suspend kid from government led education.
That's annoying big brother government that conservatives should dislike. If cussed out the staffer about abortion being murder, there would be posts on this board in support of the kid and against big government...
2. This isn't a 1A issue.
But, good luck defending the student swearing at adults during school hours, Matlock.
are for, Matlock.The only one to laugh at is yourself for making such an absurd argument that I can use murder as an analogy to show everyone how stupid it is.HokieFanDC wrote:Correct. I wasn't arguing, I was laughing at the comparison of murder (an illegal act) to cursing (not an illegal act). That's what theUSN_Hokie wrote:1. That's not an argument.HokieFanDC wrote:That's one of your better ones!USN_Hokie wrote:John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.HokieFanDC wrote:Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.CFB Apologist wrote:[
He's being suspended for 2 days from school. Not jailed. No rights taken away. Suspended from school. This is not a civil rights issue.
2. This isn't a 1A issue.
But, good luck defending the student swearing at adults during school hours, Matlock.
As for the 2nd point, I already addressed the school grounds issue and the possibility of that being a valid reason for suspension, in the context of an activity that is clearly a display of free speech.
You realize that what I posted was agreeing with your argument that the school has authority over their kids, as long as they punished him for violating an actual school policy, and that they apply that punishment evenly, right?USN_Hokie wrote:The only one to laugh at is yourself for making such an absurd argument that I can use murder as an analogy to show everyone how stupid it is.HokieFanDC wrote:Correct. I wasn't arguing, I was laughing at the comparison of murder (an illegal act) to cursing (not an illegal act). That's what theUSN_Hokie wrote:1. That's not an argument.HokieFanDC wrote:That's one of your better ones!USN_Hokie wrote: John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.
2. This isn't a 1A issue.
But, good luck defending the student swearing at adults during school hours, Matlock.
As for the 2nd point, I already addressed the school grounds issue and the possibility of that being a valid reason for suspension, in the context of an activity that is clearly a display of free speech.
The best part is you don't even realize it and showed your arse again.
As for #2, gold star for you creating and defeating your argument in one post!
No, you dismissed that argument.HokieFanDC wrote:You realize that what I posted was agreeing with your argument that the school has authority over their kids, as long as they punished him for violating an actual school policy, and that they apply that punishment evenly, right?USN_Hokie wrote:The only one to laugh at is yourself for making such an absurd argument that I can use murder as an analogy to show everyone how stupid it is.HokieFanDC wrote:Correct. I wasn't arguing, I was laughing at the comparison of murder (an illegal act) to cursing (not an illegal act). That's what theUSN_Hokie wrote:1. That's not an argument.HokieFanDC wrote:That's one of your better ones!USN_Hokie wrote: John Wilkes Boothe was sharing his opinion of Lincoln. The 1A is equally (ir)relevant in both cases.
2. This isn't a 1A issue.
But, good luck defending the student swearing at adults during school hours, Matlock.
As for the 2nd point, I already addressed the school grounds issue and the possibility of that being a valid reason for suspension, in the context of an activity that is clearly a display of free speech.
The best part is you don't even realize it and showed your arse again.
As for #2, gold star for you creating and defeating your argument in one post!
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
Just stop.USN_Hokie wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:No, you dismissed that argument.USN_Hokie wrote:You realize that what I posted was agreeing with your argument that the school has authority over their kids, as long as they punished him for violating an actual school policy, and that they apply that punishment evenly, right?HokieFanDC wrote:The only one to laugh at is yourself for making such an absurd argument that I can use murder as an analogy to show everyone how stupid it is.USN_Hokie wrote:
Correct. I wasn't arguing, I was laughing at the comparison of murder (an illegal act) to cursing (not an illegal act). That's what the
As for the 2nd point, I already addressed the school grounds issue and the possibility of that being a valid reason for suspension, in the context of an activity that is clearly a display of free speech.
The best part is you don't even realize it and showed your arse again.
As for #2, gold star for you creating and defeating your argument in one post!
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
If you want to back track from your dismissal of alternative explanations, that's fine with me.HokieFanDC wrote:Just stop.USN_Hokie wrote:HokieFanDC wrote:No, you dismissed that argument.USN_Hokie wrote:You realize that what I posted was agreeing with your argument that the school has authority over their kids, as long as they punished him for violating an actual school policy, and that they apply that punishment evenly, right?HokieFanDC wrote:
The only one to laugh at is yourself for making such an absurd argument that I can use murder as an analogy to show everyone how stupid it is.
The best part is you don't even realize it and showed your arse again.
As for #2, gold star for you creating and defeating your argument in one post!
Punishing someone for voicing their opinion is suppression of speech. Now, if they had a no cell phone policy, or a no cursing policy, that is enforced, maybe they have reason to do so. In this case, I don't see it. Insubordinate? To whom? That doesn't make any sense. That's the first clue that they know they're out of line.
I left open the possibility that they have a reason for punishment (the "if" part), based on school policy, and state that I haven't seen anything about them having such a school policy (the "it" that I haven't seen).
And using insubordination as justification is still silly. Whoever came up with that is a boob.