Posted on 06/04/2004 1:21:20 PM PDT by MikeJ75
GRAND BLANC - Bringing flags bearing the Confederate insignia to school could cost two Grand Blanc High School seniors their diplomas.
School administrators met Thursday to determine the fates of the two students and a third who was involved in an altercation sparked by the flags. School officials wouldn't announce the outcome of the meeting.
The Confederate flag has sparked a heated debate at the school about whether it's simply a symbol of the South or one of racial discrimination and slavery.
The two students who brought the flags to school Wednesday said there's nothing racist about the Confederate flag. They said it represents Southern pride, among other things, although one of the students said he wanted to apologize to peers who were offended.
(Excerpt) Read more at mlive.com ...
Either a sleeping troll OR posting out of sexual frustration... since I'm acquainted with the latter situation I suggest my own personal remedy for sexual frustration. Chocolate. Lots of it.
Hogwash
You are not only full of bile,you are misinformed.
By the way, nice turn of phrase on principle, things like that always give me a little smile in between head-shaking episodes while reading through these things.
Of course, he's a troll.
Not to mention a boor.
And demonstrably ignorant on the subjects he chooses to make assertions about.
To be honest, my impression is that he might be all of 14.
Which leads me to wonder, why are we wasting our time arguing with him?
Also known as the 10th Cavalry. Another familiar name in that regiment was one John J. (Black Jack) Pershing. Did pretty well for an Army puke.
I hope some good lawyers are lurking on FR. School administrators who act in this way are just begging to be sued. May they get their wish, and may their districts suffer a multi-million dollar settlement.
What basic principle is being violated? Equal protection.
The educational unions, through their encouragement and abetting of this kind of mistreatment, should face a RICO suit.
Osama apologist curious311 is gone.
Good riddance to bad rubbish....Bravo!
Is there any reason you decided to direct your post to me? Please don't copy me if I have nothing to do with the topic.
I only argue with even the most obvious of trolls for the lurkers and uninformed; hate to have them spin their stuff on FR.
Then he tried to enlist Dwight Eisenhower on his side. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and figuring that he was a college student, but after seeing the crap he put up over on the Abu Ghraib thread.......I think he really did try to lie to us and buffalo someone. I think now that he knew better, and did it on purpose. Unbelievable.
Is this the kind of person who's going to be misusing the name of "citizen of the United States" in future? Democrats like Henry Jackson would have disowned people like this.
Call me naive, but I keep getting surprised when I run into genuine, witting dishonesty on these threads, stuff put up by people who know better, for dishonest reasons. It's pretty discouraging.
I am happy to report that curious311 is gone - banned or suspended.
No need to do that. He was kinda fun to bait...then watch his arguments run in increasingly incoherent circles.
He certainly expended more electrons with his assertions than were needed to refute them.
Let's see, Clinton signed the Confederate Flag day while he was governor and the NAACP filed a suit against him but that's ok, he was the first black president.
Didn't a democrat governor of South Carolina fly a confederate flag above the capital for many years and that was ok too. Anyone else would have been a racist.
You gave him more credit than I. I was guessing 14.
At least the arguments were teenybopperish. But the fact he was aware of Dwight Eisenhower and could actually spell does suggest an older person.
You have to admire the classic liberal structure of his arguments...
1. Leftist makes unsupported assertion.2. Assertion is refuted with unassailable fact.
3. Leftist adopts one of following tactics:
a. Ignores fact, reasserts original charge or
b. Accuses opponent of unfair tactics or
c. Changes subject or
d. Call names
It's as if the expected payoff is in lurkers nodding wisely and saying, "now, here is a person who knows how to feeeeelllll -- he must be right! Or if not merely "right", then much more admirable than those other grouchy people!"
That would appear to be what the liberal trollers seem to want to do.
Yeah, he knew too many revisionist arguments -- or squawks, more like it -- and knew to try to co-opt a respected Republican president to his side of the argument, in reliance on general ignorance, among FReepers, of what Eisenhower actually stood for.
His bad luck to run into an old fart like me who's been reading newspapers since he was eight. When I was nine, my dad had to take away from me a library copy of Gen. John Gavin's book, War and Peace in the Atomic Age, that he'd brought home to read. My mom didn't want me reading that stuff. So 15 years later, I skimmed Herman Kahn's On Thermonuclear War instead, and read through my dad's General Electric engineering handbook, learning the Greek alphabet and studying the nuclear weapons-effects tables so that at least I knew what the stakes were if the Russians came over the Pole.
Yeah, growing up in the Fifties was a blast, a non-stop party.
Actually, I'm a few years younger than you. I was about the second or third item of agenda after the war brides got to America in 1946.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.