It's unconstitutional to make students stand for pledge, judge rules

[Incident_command]

It's unconstitutional to make students stand for pledge, judge rules

The Associated Press
Posted June 1 2006, 8:29 PM EDT

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=text vAlign=top>
WEST PALM BEACH -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that it is unconstitutional to require a student to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Judge Kenneth Ryskamp also ruled that a student does not have to get a parent's permission to be excused from reciting the pledge</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the state Board of Education and state Education Commissioner John Winn on behalf of a Boynton Beach High School student who said he was disciplined for not standing during the pledge last year. Cameron Frazier, then a 17-year-old junior, was told by teacher Cynthia Alexandre that he was ``so ungrateful and so un-American'' after he twice refused to stand for the pledge in her classroom Nov. 8, the lawsuit said.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-0601pledgeruling,0,46426.story?coll=sfla-news-palm



Judges = ex hippies who now destroy our country every way they can.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Wow! Just . . . . Wow!

My children stood for the pledge out of hnor, respect and regard (yes, we would recite the Pledge of Allegince every morning during their elementary homeschool years) . . . otherwise they'd stand for it out of concern for how much their tush would hurt if they tried to sit down, :smirky: .

[Rink]

Standing for the Pledge NEVER hurt me, where does this jackass Judge get this kind of ruling?

Is he on crack or something?

GOOD GRIEF!!!

[Gonzo67]

As part of a settlement with the Palm Beach County School District, Frazier will get $32,500 and Alexandre will be reprimanded in writing.


Ok, let me see if I have all the facts...

Because the little bastard is anti-American, and feels he's too good to swear Allegiance to the county that is sheltering him, and protecting him, he should be awarded $32,500.00 because the teacher that RIGHTFULLY called him "Un-American" and "Ungrateful" (which, by the way constituted the FULL punishment he recieved... name calling). He DESERVES this compensation because the teacher infringed upon his 1st and 4th amendment rights...

And ALSO, the TEACHER will be REPRIMANDED for "punishing the ungrateful unAmerican little bastard, by calling him what he is... ungrateful, and unAmerican.

In otherwords, we're going to trample all over HER 1st Amendment rights (free speech) by PUNISHING her for exercising HER rights....

WTF? Is the ACLU being run by Kelly Bundy?

[Riverboat]

Yadda-yadda. . . told by teacher Cynthia Alexandre that he was ``so ungrateful and so un-American'' after he twice refused to stand for the pledge in her classroom Nov. 8, the lawsuit said.

Requiring Frazier to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance is ``in violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights,'' the lawsuit said.

As part of a settlement with the Palm Beach County School District, Frazier will get $32,500 and Alexandre will be reprimanded in writing.

Well, as we all know, a reprimand in the public school system is largely a toothless gesture. I've known some honorable teachers who took one of those in the pants.

A VERY public resignation for receiving a written reprimand for insisting a student stand for the Pledge of Allegiance has GOT to be one of the one best things a teacher can use to burnish his resume.

[The_Elucidator]

As part of a settlement with the Palm Beach County School District, Frazier will get $32,500 and Alexandre will be reprimanded in writing.


I wonder if the other parents in the School District will be upset at their property taxes going to this anti-american tool!

[Lubbock]

Uh, no, #6. The folks won't be upset. It's West Palm Beach.

I would expect them to be hosting gala dinners for the Judge and the unAmerican/antiAmerican Troll.

At my age, I won't live to see it, but but there will come a time in this nation when things turn around. I'm afraid some of you younger ones may live to see a lot of blood spilled right here on American soil, because there is going to come a time when the vast majority decide that sending elected representatives to Washington is not the answer.

There will come a time when the vast silent majority who understand why our forefathers died, take up arms and turn things around at the point of a gun.

It's apt to take anarchy right here at home to rid the country of the Criminal Liberal Left who embrace every evil, from not standing for the Pledge to perverts raping six-year olds and not being punished.

Not standing for the Pledge is just one small evil, sanctoned by men in black robes; but evil is what the left stands for, and it's sanctioned by men in black robes, by the elected representatives inside the Beltway (Democrat and Republican), and by your next door neighbor.

Evil, big and little; large and small.

[DesertFox]

What Lubbock said. But I think he (and I) will be alive to see it.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Gonzo67:
Is the ACLU being run by Kelly Bundy?

:smirky: I thought it was being run by The Devil.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

DesertFox:
What Lubbock said. But I think he (and I) will be alive to see it.

:moo: Lubbock, you really need to consider that gender marker thing I told you about.

[Borgia]

Personally I think pining for bloodshed on American soil is rather unpatriotic and, dare I say it, treasonous.

[DesertFox]

Then you haven't read the Declaration of Independence recently.

[Borgia]

Then you haven't read the Declaration of Independence recently.

It wasn't American soil yet so it was not unpatriotic as it pertains to America. :licky:

[Incident_command]

Recently, thats generous.

[DesertFox]

You haven't read Patrick Henry recently. Or John Locke.

[Borgia]

You haven't read Patrick Henry recently. Or John Locke.

Oh, don't get me wrong, if the govt gets so oppressive that we need to overthrow it I am all for it. But I don't gaze lovingly at the thought of such. Spilling the blood of my fellow American would be a tragedy.

[DesertFox]

Who's gazing lovingly?

But there are plenty of people who could use a good killing. The world would be a better place without them.

[Borgia]

It seemed Lubbock's post came across that way but having read it again, I see that I misconstrued it.

I apologize to her for saying this about her post.

[Gonzo67]

Personally I think pining for bloodshed on American soil is rather unpatriotic and, dare I say it, treasonous.


And personally, I feel that allowing our country to go to hell by following the liberal agenda, and allowing any NON AMERICAN invader to roll on in as bold as they please to set up camp and effect a TAKEOVER of this country t be "Unpatriotic" and "TREASONOUS".

It is my sincerest hope that America will wake up, take up arms, and do the job that our Government is too chicken-shit to do. We remove the Mexicans by force. They either walk back across the border and stay there, or they get carried back in black bags.

And after thats completed, we'll clean house. Every America Hating Sympathizer can take their bleeding heart and their worthless ass across that same border, and go live with the pieces of shit you seem to love MORE than your fellow countrymen. Or like them, be carried there.

That way, YOU can be happy surrounded by the people you love (and those that you THINK love you), and WE can be happy, because we'll have the country we're SUPPOSED to have.

All the bleeding hearts for the "poor downtrodden Mexican Immigrants" better wake the fuk up and take a good look. If you think those people your "fighting" for appreciate your efforts or appreciate YOU in any way, you're sadly mistaken. When they begin their "take over" of this country, they fully intend to put YOUR ass out along with every other NON MEXICAN in this country.

So your choice in which side to "support" was a POOR decision to say the least. By choosing the Mexicans over your own country, you've screwed yourself and LOST no matter WHICH side wins. Keep your eyes open my friend. The day of reckoning is getting closer. There's either going to be a Mexican hiding in your bushes, or a pissed off American. And either way, they're going to want you out.

And to clarify, I consider ANYONE that refuses to support this country, and DEMANDS the right to DISRESPECT this country in any way, to be a NON AMERICAN.

[S-T]

As much as I disagree with refusing to stand for the pledge, the kid should not be forced to do so. Freedom of speech necessarily includes the freedom not to speak. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for the right to dissent as well as the right to wave, salute and pledge allegiance to the flag.

[Gonzo67]

As much as I disagree with refusing to stand for the pledge, the kid should not be forced to do so. Freedom of speech necessarily includes the freedom not to speak. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for the right to dissent as well as the right to wave, salute and pledge allegiance to the flag.


I agree, he should not be forced to respect this country. And as he has the right to show a lack of respect for this country, he also has the right to NOT receive any benefits from the country he does not respect. He also has the right to LAVE the country he doesn't respect and find one he DOES respect.

And in NO WAY should the little bastard be COMPENSATED and REWARDED for his lack of respect.

[Nutrider99]

As much as I disagree with refusing to stand for the pledge, the kid should not be forced to do so. Freedom of speech necessarily includes the freedom not to speak. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for the right to dissent as well as the right to wave, salute and pledge allegiance to the flag.
Aboslutely. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be a jerk. Respect is taught and earned, never dictated. However, the judge should be impeached for rewarding the little bastard with anything other than the right to plop his useless butt in a chair.

Incidentally, freedom of speech also applies to anyone who might want to tell him and his ex-hippy parents what they think of them.

[Borgia]

As much as I disagree with refusing to stand for the pledge, the kid should not be forced to do so. Freedom of speech necessarily includes the freedom not to speak. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for the right to dissent as well as the right to wave, salute and pledge allegiance to the flag.

Agreed. Once you force patriotism on your people, of what value is that patriotism?

That being said, I think the kid is kind of stupid and his parents should give him a kick in the arse.

[S-T]

And in NO WAY should the little bastard be COMPENSATED and REWARDED for his lack of respect.
He's not being compensated or rewarded for refusing to stand during the pledge. The state is paying damages for violating his rights. I'm not sure $32,000 is appropriate, but some damages are reasonable IMhO.

[Wyatt_Junker]

As much as I disagree with refusing to stand for the pledge, the kid should not be forced to do so. Freedom of speech necessarily includes the freedom not to speak. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for the right to dissent as well as the right to wave, salute and pledge allegiance to the flag.

I completely disagree.

The little shit was a STUDENT. He doesn't have FOS rights. Its a SCHOOL. Its the same argument here if a kid wants to wear a Betty Page t- shirt and strap a dildo on his head during science class. Its a distraction. Its not FOS. We've bought the lib lie. FOS is not relevant.

Outside of school, I would completely agree with your post. However, in the school, the teachers need to enforce rules and that means showing absolutely no exceptionalism. The only exceptionalism or favoritism should be for kids that have a peanut allergy. As for hurt feelings, FUK THEIR FEELINGS ALL THE WAY HOME where they can stay for as long as they like in the form of being expelled.

Schools ARE indoctrination centers. Schools SHOULD be pro-American indoctrination centers. Schools should have in-built STANDARDS, of which learning ENGLISH and learning about AMERICA and, yes, reciting the pledge are part of the deal. I don't care what they do elsewhere, but America has to have educational uniformity, a body of agreement in which all kids are trained. Otherwise we have no America as they will not be taught in accordance with any standards and they can do whatever the hell they want cause they're 'adults with FOS laws'. And then we can, at that point, just close schools because we just made them irrelevant. And we can hide behind the false nobility and romanticism of 'freedom of speech' and all feel good about ourselves when, really, it just doesn't apply here, nor does it apply to many aspects of our lives. Even when we use it for dramatic effect to get our way, shed a few 'gator tears and sue people.

[Gonzo67]

The state is paying damages for violating his rights. I'm not sure $32,000 is appropriate, but some damages are reasonable IMhO.


They haven't shown me how his rights were "violated". He wasn't forced to stand. He refused to stand, and the teacher called him Ungrateful and Unamerican. No where in the article does it say that ANYONE forced him to stand.

He refused to stand TWICE. So his rights weren't "violated". He EXERCISED his rights. The teacher called him Ungrateful and Unamerican. Thats not a violation of HIS rights, thats an Exercise of HER rights to free speech. HER rights to have an opinion. She was reprimanded for exercising her rights. Where's the ACLU protest for the violation of the TEACHERS right?

The kid got called a name, and now he gets a $32k band-aid to make the boo-boo better? For that kind of cash, you're free to come to my house and beat the living shit out of me.

No one violated that little pricks rights. The case is bullshit, the kid is nothing but a little bastard, his parents should have used a condom, and the judge that awarded this travesty of justice should be stood in front of a wall and unceremoniously shot.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Wyatt_Junker]

Kids don't have trumping-power rights in school. Where did this fukkin fairy tale come from?

Sure, you can't strike a kid across the face. You can't beat a kid. But, the kid can't demonstrate politically or otherwise in the classroom either. That's just a liberal con.

It seems that people have fallen for the con.

[Gonzo67]

Kids don't have trumping-power rights in school. Where did this fukkin fairy tale come from?

Sure, you can't strike a kid across the face. You can't beat a kid. But, the kid can't demonstrate politically or otherwise in the classroom either. That's just a liberal con.

It seems that people have fallen for the con.


Doesn't matter much. The case is meaningless either way. The kids rights, real or imagined, were not violated. No one forced him to stand.

[Gonzo67]

I will add that this kid did one thing that MAY be helpful to this country. He quite possibly could help to end the debate on abortion.

Bear with me here... what if, abortion was made MANDATORY for all liberal activists!

You make the "pro-choicers" happy, because they get their "kill quota", and you make the Anti-Abortionists happy, because that effectively ends the flow of liberal activists into our society!

Eventually, we'll get to a point where we don't have little future activist pricks like this one infesting our society.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Doesn't matter much. The case is meaningless either way. The kids rights, real or imagined, were not violated. No one forced him to stand.

And unless he was 'handi-capable'(anemic, a quad or a pussy), he should have been forced to stand. Even the Jay Dubs, Mo Mos and muslims. Its not about personal feelings. Its about enforcing standard ritual in the classroom, of which, FOS and 'rights' do not exist. Obviously you can't force kids to lick the latrines. CPS would be all over that, but for different reasons(child abuse). But child abuse is not about the false romanticism of FOS.

If some kid does not want to participate in classroom activity, they don't have to participate in class or in school. They have rights. They can leave the school... for good.

[cerberus]

As much as I disagree with refusing to stand for the pledge, the kid should not be forced to do so. Freedom of speech necessarily includes the freedom not to speak. The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for the right to dissent as well as the right to wave, salute and pledge allegiance to the flag.
Absolutely. Perfectly put, S-T.:claps:

[Riverboat]

. . . what if, abortion was made MANDATORY for all liberal activists!

You make the "pro-choicers" happy, because they get their "kill quota", and you make the Anti-Abortionists happy, because that effectively ends the flow of liberal activists into our society!

Eventually, we'll get to a point where we don't have little future activist pricks like this one infesting our society.Liberal Democrats are already declining. They did it all by themselves.

I assume your dream of mandatory abortion of liberal activists was meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek. Liberals aren't born that way. They have to strangle their brain cells little by little until they reach "maturity."

[Wolfcounsel]

"Spilling the blood of my fellow American would be a tragedy." --Borgia

You would be spilling the blood of the other side. I don't see it as a tragedy to spill the blood of the enemy.

If Americans turn spineless and allow the pinkos to take over America, you can take it to the bank that the assholes in charge will force you to salute their flag from Hell at the point of a gun or bayonet!

[Gonzo67]

Liberals aren't born that way. They have to strangle their brain cells little by little until they reach "maturity."


Yes, but in Gonzo's world, we'll just be speeding up the process. Why wait for maturity when you can just effect the end result at the start and save them time, and save us the headaches? :)


I assume your dream of mandatory abortion of liberal activists was meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek.


Yes.... but should it come up for a vote, I won't vote against. ;)

[Rhino]

Wasn't this issue ruled on by another court not that long ago?

[Jag Wife]

What Lubbock said. But I think he (and I) will be alive to see it.

I believe the Minuteman fence project is the first spark of frontier justice on the horizon. As a DAR prospect, I can only hope so. I couldn't bear the shame if our ancestors knew what was going on today.

[Incident_command]

Wasn't this issue ruled on by another court not that long ago?

Correct. There was a previous FC thread on this. I think I started that one also.

[Rhino]

This one.

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31896

[Borgia]

"Spilling the blood of my fellow American would be a tragedy." --Borgia

You would be spilling the blood of the other side. I don't see it as a tragedy to spill the blood of the enemy.

If Americans turn spineless and allow the pinkos to take over America, you can take it to the bank that the assholes in charge will force you to salute their flag from Hell at the point of a gun or bayonet!

I don't consider conservatives my enemy, nor are they worthy of death. I think we can all get along with different views on how American should work. I doubt any liberals would force you to salute the flag. Heck, we are the ones saying you can burn it if you want. :)

[Wolfcounsel]

"I think we can all get along with different views on how American should work." --Borgia

Not at all, if you are on the side of the pro-murder people. I would start there.

Anyway, any war would be fought against the assholes in a government position who are using the Constitution as toilet paper, and of course any toadies who get in the way.

[Lubbock]

POSTED BY YOU KNOW WHO:

"Spilling the blood of my fellow American would be a tragedy."


See? That’s THE difference between us and them.

The vast majority of us understand and revere the blood that was spilled by our Forefathers, and the vast majority of us–young or old, male or female, would be willing to take up arms to defend Freedom, understanding that we would be defending the blood spilled by our Forefathers. I'm not talking about the 1776 Forefathers exclusively.

Folks from the Criminal Liberal Left are willing to cower in any dark corner for as long as it takes, in order not to have to take a stand and defend Freedom.

That’s your difference between Freedom and enslavement.

Folks from the Criminal Liberal Left are willing to see themselves and all the rest of us enslaved under the hand of tyranny, rather than take up arms and defend Freedom. That's a difference the Right and the Left will never reconcile.

Some of those folks even go so far as to accuse the rest of us of being unpatriotic and treasonous because of our deep rooted belief that Freedom has to be defended, and as rule, that defense is going to involve bloodshed. Heck, those people might even call the rest of us bloodthirsty.

[Borgia]

POSTED BY YOU KNOW WHO:

"Spilling the blood of my fellow American would be a tragedy."


See? That’s THE difference between us and them.

The vast majority of us understand and revere the blood that was spilled by our Forefathers, and the vast majority of us–young or old, male or female, would be willing to take up arms to defend Freedom, understanding that we would be defending the blood spilled by our Forefathers. I'm not talking about the 1776 Forefathers exclusively.

Folks from the Criminal Liberal Left are willing to cower in any dark corner for as long as it takes, in order not to have to take a stand and defend Freedom.

That’s your difference between Freedom and enslavement.

Folks from the Criminal Liberal Left are willing to see themselves and all the rest of us enslaved under the hand of tyranny, rather than take up arms and defend Freedom. That's a difference the Right and the Left will never reconcile.

Some of those folks even go so far as to accuse the rest of us of being unpatriotic and treasonous because of our deep rooted belief that Freedom has to be defended, and as rule, that defense is going to involve bloodshed. Heck, those people might even call the rest of us bloodthirsty.

Lubbock:

Instead of just guessing what is in my heart and mind, why don't you ask? I would be more than happy to defend my country and American freedoms and I would lay my life down in order to do so. AS a matter of fact, my two closest friends are in the Air Force and have served in the Iraq conflict. Both are liberals but to you, I guess they are somehow unworthy of your respect despite their putting their lives on the line for America.

Belive it or not, plenty of liberals are fighting RIGHT NOW in Iraq to defend you and your freedoms. It is not just conservatives fighting over there.

[Borgia]

And another point, conservatives like you are sooo afraid of the terrorists that you are willing to give up your freedoms.

Me? I am different than you. I am not cowering in a corner so afraid of the terrorists that I am willing to allow the govt to take away my rights in order to defend me.

I think we can win the war and retain our rights. You are so fearful you are willing to give up some rights in your fear. I don't let fear rule me like you do.

[Wolfcounsel]

"I am not cowering in a corner so afraid of the terrorists that I am willing to allow the govt to take away my rights in order to defend me." --Borgia

Oh! So you are the mysterious individual entering courthouses and kicking the crap out of the black-robed baboons there, and also the fellow who singlehandedly told the Senate where they could shove their law-making skills, and you told "Homeland" to wipe their asses with their security rules?

[Lubbock]

Okay! Here we go!!! It's my turn.

Cite me one reference to any ---repeat: ANY freedom, that I or any other American has been asked to give up as a result of this war on terror that we are engaged in.

Cite it. Point me to it. One reference! Cite it.

Reference. I want a reference.

And just for the record, please don't cite Murtha or Dean, et al. Or the New York Slimes, the Washington Compost, Rooters. We all know those sources are not credible.

[Borgia]

Okay! Here we go!!! It's my turn.

Cite me one reference to any ---repeat: ANY freedom, that I or any other American has been asked to give up as a result of this war on terror that we are engaged in.

Not having your phone calls listened to. Normally that requires a court warrant. Now you can all tapdance around the issue and say that a warrant is not rquired but that is still a freedomlost when we do not require the govt to get a warrant.

By the way, are you calling my liberal Air Force buddies cowards like you did in your earlier post? One is over there right now patching GIs together. you want him to stop doing that cause he is a liberal and a coward?

[Betrayed]

I agree that no one should be forced to pledge alligence to the flag. But I also agree that no one should be restricted from kicking the ass of anyone who wants to sit down while everyone is paying respect.

[Lubbock]

Horse hockey!

The NSA has listened to your phone calls? Who from al Qaeda are you talking to?

What terrorist sleeper cell are you affiliated with?

As of this moment, I can guarantee you my phone calls are not being listened to.

Further, you do not have the least understanding of just what the NSA is doing, or how they go about it.

Do you have a clear understanding of just how the FISA Court works?

Further, don't you know that numerous US intelligence agencies (about fifteen of them at last count) have been engaged in spying, here and abroad, for longer then you or have have been alive?

Horse hockey!

This "conversation" is over! I never should have engaged in it in the first place!

I won't again. On any subject!

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

There is no guarantee in our Constitution that I am aware of against negative freedoms. Telephone service isn't a "right," just as driving a car is not a "right." If the government can restrict our use of seatbelts when driving, why can't they listen in on our telephone conversations?

In addition I've seen no evidence of the government "listening" in on the conversations of John Q. or Susie Q. public. Makes me think of an argument from another thread regarding the UN and homeschooling, :smirky: . But I digress, and in NO WAY desire to take this thread off topic :grin: .

There is a slippery slope -- what needs te be understood is where the line is drawn. These phone calls are transpiring between KNOWN terrorists and citizens of and/or phone customers in the United States. That is a reasonable criteria for listening in on the calls.

[Gonzo67]

Not having your phone calls listened to.


Don't simply mimic the liberal paranoia hype... they weren't LISTENING to phone calls. They were gathering data consisting of CALL PATTERNS. What areas of the U.S. were calling what countries, etc. And for the record, they do NOT need a court order for that, if the company which OWNS those records turns them over freely.

That "call data" is not Yours or MY property. It's the PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY that records that data. If you do not want YOUR NUMBER nor the number of any place you call to be included in that data, your ONLY option is to NOT MAKE ANY CALLS. There was no "invasion of privacy", there was no "listening to phone conversations".


you can all tapdance around the issue and say that a warrant is not rquired but that is still a freedomlost when we do not require the govt to get a warrant.


How can it be a "freedom lost" when it was never a freedom you had? As I said, any time you conduct business with a company, all information freely supplied by you TO that company becomes the COMPANIES property, not yours. And if that company gives that information freely to the government, there is NO COURT ORDER OR WARRANT NEEDED.

There are "exceptions" to the rule which are there for protection of SENSITIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION, such as bank account numbers, social security numbers, etc. But YOUR PHONE NUMBER, and the NUMBER OF THE PERSON YOU CALLED, as well as your location and their location are NOT classified under "sensitive information". And by placing that call, and utilizing the companies equipment to be connected to the number you called, you gave up ANY claim to that information.

[Borgia]

The NSA has listened to your phone calls? Who from al Qaeda are you talking to?
You didn't ask what freedoms *I* had lost but what freedoms ANY AMERICAN has lost. Are you now attempting to change what you requested?


Further, you do not have the least understanding of just what the NSA is doing, or how they go about it.
I think I have a fairly good grasp on what they do. A while ago I had the oppotunity to interview with them so I did a bit of research.

Do you have a clear understanding of just how the FISA Court works?
I know exactly how the FISA court works.


Further, don't you know that numerous US intelligence agencies (about fifteen of them at last count) have been engaged in spying, here and abroad, for longer then you or have have been alive?
Nothing wrong with spying. Just do it legallywhen it comes to Americans is all I ask.


Horse hockey!
Never played it but it sounds like fun. I absolutely LOVE broomball!


This "conversation" is over! I never should have engaged in it in the first place!

I won't again. On any subject!

Running away already? And no apology or retraction about calling liberals cowards? You don't want to address my two friends serving in the Air Force right now and defending your freedoms? I woudl call not wanting to own up to your own words an act of cowardice.

[Rhino]

Not having your phone calls listened to.Haven't given up that freedom. Anything else?

[Borgia]

Don't simply mimic the liberal paranoia hype... they weren't LISTENING to phone calls. They were gathering data consisting of CALL PATTERNS. What areas of the U.S. were calling what countries, etc. And for the record, they do NOT need a court order for that, if the company which OWNS those records turns them over freely.

You confuse two different govt programs here. In one, they listened to calls coming from overseas to US citizens and said they did not need a warrant. The other program, to which you refer, is completely different.

[Borgia]

Haven't given up that freedom. Anything else?

You and I disagree on whether warrants are required. I say they are, you say otherwise. I would also add that the more "free" position would say they are required.

[Rhino]

If you aren't involved in terrorist activity, you aren't monitored, so you haven't lost anything. As far as I'm concerned, anyone involved in such activity doesn't have the right to do it unmonitored, warrant or no warrant, so they haven't lost anything either.

Your point is not totally off base though. We are tolerant of more restrictions since the terrorist attacks, such as increased video surveillance, security checks, etc. I'm not sure I'd classify that as lost freedom though.

[Borgia]

I would also say that Geroge Bush's contention that he can, without checks or balances, decalre any American citizen an enemy combatant and deny them legal representation and hold them without trial would be a loss of liberty.

And before you trot out that we are in a war, I will point out that officially we are NOT in a state of war since no DoW exists.

I'd call that a loss of freedom.

[Borgia]

If you aren't involved in terrorist activity, you aren't monitored, so you haven't lost anything. As far as I'm concerned, anyone involved in such activity doesn't have the right to do it unmonitored, warrant or no warrant, so they haven't lost anything either.

Lubbock did not make qualifications when she asked, did she? And I am glad you have such confidence in your govt that they won't make ANY mistakes in classification. :)


Your point is not totally off base though. We are tolerant of more restrictions since the terrorist attacks, such as increased video surveillance, security checks, etc. I'm not sure I'd classify that as lost freedom though.

I would, it comes down to what are we willing to give up? What are acceptable losses of freedoms. I think you would agree that they are losses of freedom, just of such an inconsequential nature that you don't mind when weighing with the return.

[Rhino]

I would also say that Geroge Bush's contention that he can, without checks or balances, decalre any American citizen an enemy combatant and deny them legal representation and hold them without trial would be a loss of liberty.When has that happened?

Lubbock did not make qualifications when she asked, did she?The only qualification I saw was what she or any other American has been asked to give up as a result of the war on terror. That fits with my answer.

And I am glad you have such confidence in your govt that they won't make ANY mistakes in classification. :)I suppose I have you at a disadvantage, having been there. Some mistakes get made, but as I said once before, the checks and balances in the system are onerous, and they take care of those mistakes.

I would, it comes down to what are we willing to give up? What are acceptable losses of freedoms. I think you would agree that they are losses of freedom, just of such an inconsequential nature that you don't mind when weighing with the return.It's a matter of degrees that we could probably argue forever. But that happens all the time even without terrorism, in one form or another. In a strict sense, you could say that's been happening for 230 years.

[Lazarus]

Dont worry, Borgia... The government wont start listening to your phone calls until the next Clinton sits in the Whitehouse...

[Betrayed]

Dont worry, Borgia... The government wont start listening to your phone calls until the next Clinton sits in the Whitehouse...

Don't think that the 'republicans' in our office aren't capable of listening in on you. These politicians are just as dirty and ruthless, if not more than the democrats at the moment. It is ridiculous how much freedoms politicians on both sides don't care about taking away from us. I bet they are even working together when you really get down in the government.

[DesertFox]

One isn't "forcing patriotism" by expecting people to stand during the pledge. One is enforcing respect for others. Every year I tell my cadets, "You don't have to say the pledge, but I do expect you to stand respectfully even if you don't. That's because we all know how uncomfortable it is for everyone when one guy refuses to go along and forces everyone else out of their comfort zone.

"Alternatively, if you have a problem saying the pledge, tell me one-on-one and you and I can arrange something else for you during that brief period."

To date, I've had any number of kids not say the pledge -- mostly because that was their way of registering how sleepy / bored they were -- but none have ever caused a problem about standing.

[cerberus]

I agree that no one should be forced to pledge alligence to the flag. But I also agree that no one should be restricted from kicking the ass of anyone who wants to sit down while everyone is paying respect. You're kidding right? This is hyperbole right?

[Betrayed]

I politely stand and raise out of respect, but never recite it in homage of my home country. I will always respect the American flag by standing up for it though. I owe it my respect for allowing me to start a better life.

[Betrayed]

You're kidding right? This is hyperbole right?

No, completely serious. I can't stand people who don't respect the flag of this country. America gives so much to it's people, including the free-loading people who mooch off of hard working tax-payers. Also including the illegals here who don't have to pay a dime back to society except in the form of sales tax. Even the terrorists should pay respect for having the oppurtunity to live in a country millions of times less shittier than their home country of Camel****istan. If you aren't going to recite it, then fine. But the least anyone could do is stand up. Not to do so is ignorant, and in my opinion deserving of punishment from the school deans who shouldn't have to tolerate that bullcrap from any kid. The school system has been going down here for decades, and it ended when teachers weren't allowed to smack their students anymore.

[cerberus]

One isn't "forcing patriotism" by expecting people to stand during the pledge. One is enforcing respect for others. Debatable, but you can't do that either (at least in public schools). The pledge isn't mandatory, nor is standing for it.

[Rhino]

Should be. I need a bench to legislate from.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Let's completely balkanize the entire K thru 8.

If the muslims don't want to play dodgeball because the burka gets in the way, accomodate them.

If the atheists don't want to say the pledge, let them carve pentagrams right into their forearms instead.

If Pedro doesn't want to speak ingles, let Napoleon Dynamite run his class president campaign.

In fact, just let the kids run riot. Let 'em do whatever it is they want. Its a free country and it wouldn't be fair not to let them express their own individual identities.

If kids want to lay on the ground and roll around or make snow angels during history class, let 'em.

If kids want to beat themselves with a head of lettuce during math class, RIGHT ON!

If instead of a moment of silence, kids want a moment of NOISE, let 'em.

If little Jimmy wants to play with his junk during the pledge, he's only expressing his FOS rights.

Anarchy High.

Its a school that emphasizes feelings and helps foster individual creativity.

There is no teacher. You can do whatever the hell you want.