Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
sounds like something that would happen in my school.
hahahahahahaDarren (it is kinda awkward calling you by your first name), if you were the teacher in that movie, I could totally see you running over the kids who made it in your KIA, and then laughing at the poor students.But expelling them is going to far.
It's kinda awkward because it's kinda inappropriate =(
It's kind of stupid of the kids to imply something negative about a teacher with no sense of humor, AND actually say their name. They should have had the actor dress up alot like the teacher, but not actually say their name. That way they could argue their way out of it, but saying the name leaves no room for error on the schools part. Even if it was a completely intended insult on the teacher, I will admit expelling them was too far. But schools don't take risks that big, and we probably don't know the full story. They might have been troublemakers and were on their last chances at staying in school.
they should have just had a snowman instead of a teddybear shoot the teacher. so not only would they get expelled for "threatening" but for put drug references in their video as well.think about that....a fictional character (frosty the snowman) doped up on drugs....on a video-game style shooting rampage....interesting.SAVE FROSTY!
ACLU to the rescue once again! I hope everyone's membership dues are up to date. Disturbing to think where we'd all be without the ACLU to fight The Good Fight.
Save Frosty!And anonymous, even if only by accident the ACLU is going to make the right call once in awhile.Of course, a quick look at their web site doesn't reveal any support for these students. Instead I see whining about "illegal NSA spying", complaints about the Pentagon's supposedly spying on potentially subversive groups, and cries for "truth and accountability" regarding Guantanamo prisoners in the Global War on Terror. If you think those are "The Good Fight", then you're on the wrong side.
Few things so satisfying as seeing a right-wing blogger in favor of government intrusion, warrantless wiretapping, secret prisons, etc. Same party line you touted during the Clinton years, no doubt. I know, I know, you were eager to hand over any and all personal liberties to the care and trust of Bill C. Due process? That's just leftie-speak for "go, terrorsits, go!" If Clinton wiretapped American citizens without warrants, you would have cheered him on. If you can't trust the White House, who can you trust?
Since you enjoy it, good that we agree.
AnonI’m glad you’re so concerned about civil liberties. Now, can you tell me who said this?“If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world. “Answer, Steve Kroft, 60 Minutes co-host.You can read the entire article at http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htmDate this was shown…February 27th, 2000. Anon, can you remind me (my 40 something brain fails at times like this) who was president in 2000, authorizing the monitoring (without warrant, subpoena, probable cause or other legal restrain) of the private communication of US people who are in the United States.It wasn’t Clinton, was it?
Mr. Miller!Oh no, killer teddy bears... now I'm scared! Not only is that the stupidest thing I have ever heard, but that is just proof of schools over reacting to pointless situations such as that. I don't want anyone getting shot... but I'll worry about that when I see my teddy bear walking away with a rifle, and no sooner. For this, I am on your side.
Post a Comment