There is no cite. “I read somewhere” is not a cite.
Some kids refused to change their clothing. If that is “attitude”, then we need more of it. What if the kid was wearing a Gay Pride T-shirt and was asked to turn it inside out. Was he displaying “attitude” by refusing to do so, or was he exercising his right to free speech?
I didn’t say no one was offended, I said I hadn’t see any evidence that they were. I’m not buying for a second that they were offended solely by the clothes. That’s just not plausible or realistic.
Palin is never offended by anything. She just gets off on pretending to be offended.
Not that one thing follows from the other. It’s not believable that the flags alone would offend fellow Americans. Not believable whatsoever. It doesn’t follow that I’m therefore saying that it’s impossible for people to be wrongly offended, just that in this particular case, any offense was totally intended to be sent.
Of course he thought that, and I guarantee he thought that because they were being little bitches about it.
No, the attitude is that they were trolling in the first place, and I guarantee they had a history of it. I’d bet anything.
True, although from what I remember from the late 90’s when I was in high school, it seemed like at least 10% of the students wore American flags on some part of their clothing or backpacks on any particular day. But then again, I grew up in a more conservative county of California. It just doesn’t seem likely to me that only five kids would be wearing them, and it would seem to be impractical to demand from a large number of students what this principal did. Therefore I can only speculate that:
These kids were all sitting in a group, and the assistant principal thought this would be intimidating or provocative to the Hispanic kids.
These kids had a history of making inflammatory remarks, and the assistant principal was trying to pre-emptively defuse the situation.
Either way I think the assistant principal handled it wrongly, and the Hispanic kids are letting it get under their skin when they should just ignore it.
So, it’s realistic that Palin fakes offense, but not realistic that some HS kid fakes offense. Even though the news report specifically says that the HS kid was offended by the flag clothing and nothing else. Once again you have staked out a position based on nothing other than your own pre-conceived ideas, and are impervious to any facts that challenge that position.
When you’ve got some actual evidence that they were, please bring it. We’re not interested in what you “guarantee”.
Not realistic that this group did, no.
The news report is bullshit, I assure you. Obviously, I can’t dissuade you from living in a fantasy world where poor, innoncent white kids are persecuted for their patriotism, but I know what I know from my own experience in schools and the specific histories of the kids and their attitudes are always heavily influential in these decisions.
We know for a fact that they were sitting in a group. A group of 5. If that’s intimidating to a group of HS students who comprise 40% of the entire school population, then those 5 kids must have some serious intimidating mojo going for them.
And yet there is no evidence of such a history. No report by any of the students interviewed, and no remark from any school administrator. We only know that those administrators are now falling all over themselves to apologize for the mistake. I don’t see any reason to "speculate’ when we have multiple news reports to refer to . There are interviews with all parties involved, and there is no mention that these kids have a history of making inflammatory remarks, and no evidence that this particular episode was inflammatory in nature. People are staking out differing political viewpoints. Happens all the time.
Agreed.
So, I am living in a fantasy world by quoting actual news reports to back up my points and refute yours, but you are grounding the the reality of your own speculation, even when it runs contrary to the facts available. Got it.
I feel the need to return to you the advice you gave about **Snowboarder **upthread, sir.
Forget it, Mace… it’s Diotown. Cites are conclusive unless they contradict his hypothesis, which makes them “bullshit.” An utter absence of evidence is irrelevant; holes are merely filled in with supposition and his own “experience.”
A poster I once respected, now (in my humble opinion) one fake NDE away from being lekatt.
You’d probably achieve a closer comparison with Starving Artist, to be honest.
I may be disappointed with him, but that doesn’t justify cruelty.
You haven’t refute anything I’ve said, and I assure you, the news reports are, at best, incomplete.
Do you think the motivation is that the adminstration just hates white kids and wants to persecute them for being patriotic?
Not “administration” - “Administrator.” The Administration, in the person of the Principal, has apologized. The administrator who busted the boys has said nothing, and by news accounts is under some fire by the district for over-stepping his authority.
I’ll give your assurance all the consideration it is due.
I don’t, and I don’t believe that any of my posts indicate that I think that.
But it doesn’t matter what the motivations was, the action was still incorrect. Maybe the assistant principal was a scared little weenie, and had no idea how to assess whether a situation was volatile or not. It looks like his actions served only to increase the tension at the school. Let’s just hope he learned something from this experience.
So what? What does any of this have to do with anything I’ve said.
I said the action was a mistake, but I’d also bet my house those specific kids were being punks or had a history of being punks. I’ve been there, done that job. I know how it works.
You also don’t know that the situation was NOT volatile. For all you know he really did avoid an altercation.
“Being punks” is not a debatable argument. It can mean almost anything. But I can see now where you are coming from. You are so committed to fighting the argument that the administrator hates white kids that you don’t seem to be aware that no one in this thread is making that argument. You don’t need to invoke “being punks” in order to prove that the assistant principal doesn’t hate white kids.
I guess we’ll see as the investigation plays out. As of now, we’re left with the principal’s assessment, which is that the situation was not volatile, and the assistant principal overstepped his bounds.
What? The part about not making retarded statements that have no basis in reality about what school’s should be teaching with regard to our society’s holidays and celebrating them?
Oh wait. I’m the one who pointed that out.
Or did you mean the one where people wanted to allow this to become a fist fight or worse before doing anything to intervene? Maybe that wasn’t John who said that bit of stupidity (it’s been so hard to keep track of all the knee jerk “flag=win” comments).
Read for comprehension. “An administrator” is not “the administration.” One guy over-stepped his authority.
Does the administration hate white kids? No. Does that particular administrator, a Hispanic, have a hard-on for whites? Who knows? Sure looks like it could be seen that way, especially since the school and the district aren’t backing him up in this.