It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

High School Student Suspended Over Border Patrol Shirt

page: 14
64
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


I bet there's a blanket clause for "any clothing deemed inappropriate".




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Partisanity
 


Keep proving my point for me about you're attitude here. It makes me chuckle.

I caught the part about freedom of expression......that's the point of this whole thread remember? These kids rights to freely dress how they choose. Please, point me in the direction for the clause that states that all non citizens of this country have the right to milk off of the system? I never said it wasn't constitutional to have another language ahead of English on an ATM. Just that it's ridiculous that it is.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


As messed up as this is, the fact that you're at all surprised shows a bit of ignorance on your part. The public school system has been acting like this for a long time. Why do you think so many kids want to blow them up? They may be a little crazy, or even have a few growing pains, but anything in a public school that isn't conformist, will be removed by certain staff members. It's just how they are.


Exactly, I've seen much, much worse stuff than this that is constantly overlooked and even laughed at. People only raise a stink about this because it concerns illegal immigrants and they have been conditioned to think that they are "the enemy", even moreso than the government.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Partisanity
 


When I was in high school, I had the same thing happen a few times. I was even told to leave the school until I changed my outfit, which in no way violated any specific rules, only the standard blanket clause which is intended to include anything that the staff does not like.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Partisanity
 


If you think that you're immaturity offends me, then you're sorely mistaken.

Change the system by making it impossible for the illegal immigrants to benefit from it and you'll greatly cut back on the amount of illegals that come to this country. Welfare reform is it's own topic.

This kid should not have gotten punished for questioning the principal. They did nothing wrong by wearing the shirts that they did.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by babuthegreat
reply to post by Partisanity
 


Keep proving my point for me about you're attitude here. It makes me chuckle.


Yet you still can't construct an English sentence properly; you'd think you'd have a little more perspective for these foreigners.



I caught the part about freedom of expression......that's the point of this whole thread remember? These kids rights to freely dress how they choose. Please, point me in the direction for the clause that states that all non citizens of this country have the right to milk off of the system?


OOOOOOhhh so now you're here to tell me that I think illegal immigrants are awesome? No, sorry, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that you should be railing against the government, not trying to be inflammatory against illegal immigrants like it's going to accomplish dick all, because that's simply foolish and monumentally immature.


I never said it wasn't constitutional to have another language ahead of English on an ATM. Just that it's ridiculous that it is.


And would you have it changed if it were up to you? Prohibiting the exercise thereof?
edit on 5-10-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by Partisanity
 


When I was in high school, I had the same thing happen a few times. I was even told to leave the school until I changed my outfit, which in no way violated any specific rules, only the standard blanket clause which is intended to include anything that the staff does not like.


I know exactly what you mean. I was suspended constantly from high school for being the victim of bullying. "Zero tolerance". Anyone involved was suspended, so anyone who was bullied for belonging to a minority was suspended constantly and punished more than the perps for "repeat offenses". And what does it take for these people to get mad about the education system? A bunch of jocks that are clearly full of themselves and don't know what the hell they are talking about simply wearing T-shirts that their idiot parents probably put on them that morning to "make a point"?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by babuthegreat
 


I'm not sure that you understand the purpose here. The school was technically in the right, the whole thing is 100% legal, and fair in the eyes of the law. Sadly, the general public majority does not feel that public schools should be a democracy. Yes it sucks that one of the things you're being taught about, does not yet exist for you, but the school was technically 100% right. The only difference between a public school and a prison, is a few bars.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Partisanity
 


I believe in self expression, no matter what the subject. I'm just saying that a public school is one area of our country that is not a democracy.

It's also something that no one wants to change. The types of educational reforms that voters go for, are the things that make school even worse for students.
edit on 5-10-2011 by Thestargateisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Thestargateisreal
 


That's part of the problem here though. That hand book clause that allows the principal final say in matters of dress. Where the line was crossed though, is when the kid was suspended and the mother banned from school property for asking why. The suspension and her banning is what they both can, and should be fighting against.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

Originally posted by Procession101
Maybe they are just racist trash that thought it would be fun to poke at anyone that doesn't look like they do.


So, are you saying the Border Patrol is "racist". Or, are you saying "illegal" is now a "race"? New Speak anyone? Love is hate, war is peace. Nice one.


This is exactly correct. The public school system is no longer housing teachers/administration that actually want to teach anyone. It has turned into a severly sadistic power trip on young adults in their care.

our world is turning into Big Brother were they are trying (and winning) to have us unquestionably agree with non sense.

What makes a principle believe that he is not allowed to explain himself to a student, especially after the police gave him permission to ask a question. Furthermore, why would you wait until I went to school and left without incident , to suspend me when I get home???



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by babuthegreat
 


No one will. You and I both know it. Like it or not, the majority will sympathize with the d-bag principal. Minors have no status, and the mother will be branded a troublemaker.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
One student wearing an agency shirt is just wearing an agency shirt.

Multiple students wearing the same shirt on the same day shows collaboration and a gang mentality.

Those multiple students happen to be going on a field trip, fact is, this was planned.

And the principle knew it.

What if 7 kids showed up to school on the same day wearing the same color bandana. There are now words on it, but the message is very clear.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Oh no, not the border patrol gang!

As I recall, in my own student handbook in high school, any law enforcement shirt was against the rules. Took me some time to remember it, but it was. It also had a blanket clause.

edit on 5-10-2011 by Thestargateisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thestargateisreal
reply to post by Partisanity
 


I believe in self expression, no matter what the subject. I'm just saying that a public school is one area of our country that is not a democracy.


I also believe in self expression, but I also believe in linear courses of action. There is a lot of tension over illegal immigration right now and wearing inflammatory shirts to an event that is likely to have a high population of people that will be offended by it can be considered reckless endangerment. In this circumstance, the principal could have lost his job either way, and that's not really fair. How he handled it, however, was far less than admirable, but I don't have all of the information either and the kids in these pictures don't exactly look like modest little angels with shimmering auras of humility.

So i default to freedom of speech, while maintaining the fact that if I were one of the other kids not wearing the shirts, I would've made fun of them endlessly the entire bus ride for being so childish and inflammatory.
edit on 5-10-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Partisanity

Originally posted by babuthegreat
hmmmmmm...your whole second paragraph is a run on sentence, yet you're flaming me for grammar? You also started the sentence in your third point with the word "and" which is considered improper English to do so. Next line of that isn't even a sentence either.


Your, you're, there, their, they're, its, it's, "Pluralization", "The Possessive"



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I agree with the principle. If I was in charge I would have expelled them all.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by babuthegreat
reply to post by wagnificent
 


So you're going to try and lump an obscure state law about sexual positions into the same level of national priority as immigration law? Do i really have to point out the flawed logic in that one?

You're right, we did not treat with the Native Americans fairly. However, I can also say that we conquered them, same way we conquered the british when it came to the revolution. We fought for this and and won it, therefore, it's ours. If you think that "Jose" is spending every damn penny of his money, then you also are utterly mistake. "Jose" sends quite a large amount of the money he makes here back across the border to his family in Mexico. If you'd like, the next time I'm at my local grocery store i'll take a picture of him sending it by Western Union. He works at a local tree farm.

So what you're telling me is that you support a freely open border where anyone can come in and easily be declared a citizen of this country. That's a straight path to the U.S. becoming a thirid world country. We don't have enough jobs to support our curent population, let alone what would happen if we did something like that.


Let's talk about flawed logic then. I think anyone familiar with logic can see through nearly every one of your claims.

1. I was speaking about the selective enforcement of laws and the racist assumptions and false statistics upon which immigration laws are given priority for enforcement. What makes the issue of sexual positions more obscure than immigration? Only the fact that at this point in history, people don't care ANYMORE how other people have sex. At one point they obviously did though, or else why do we have that law? The question is when will people stop caring how others get into "our" country? How does an illegal immigrant affect you personally? If they took your job, then it's probably because either your employer views you only as a means to an end or because you just were not that great at your job. Neither of those things are the immigrant's fault.

2. "We conquered Native Americans, and we took their land, so it's ours." I think the arrogance of that line of reasoning is self-evident. Perhaps you are threatened by the possibility that illegal immigrants are here to conquer our land and make it theirs? If so I would say that's guilty paranoia, not legal righteousness.

3. I admit that yes in fact many immigrants send money to their families, including my girlfriend, but they still have to buy groceries, gas, pay rent, etc. They pay into the system, and many live with very little financial cushion. Sending money to other countries is not spending it? Sending money out of the country is only a problem because America's exports are severely lacking, which is once again not the immigrant's fault. In any case if you think people sending money to their families in other countries is a significant drain on our economy, I think you have overlooked some variables.

4. Free and open borders causing the US to become a third world country is just plain slippery slope argumentation. I'm sure we will all become cannibals and see the end of civilized society too if we open our borders.

5. No we don't have enough jobs to support the income needs of the population, but perhaps opening our borders to people will actually have a revolutionary effect on our economy, wherein people can actually get jobs not for the sake of income but because there is an actual need for that job to be done. But that's socialist, so I'm sure everyone would much prefer to do a mindless job just to rub two coins together and call themselves patriotic.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join