Ohio Student Suspended for Staying in Class During Walkout

Your standard is if one student isn't forced to protest then none of them were. Typical Democrat kool aid swiller

I never said such a thing. I have only commented on the parts that I have personal experience with. Unlike you I do not rely on FoxNews to tell me what to think.

Mantra repeated, evidence not presented. Your typical post. This is why I've removed your right to ask questions. You don't answer them, you don't get to ask them

I am still waiting for you to present your evidence since I asked nicely firsts. Why do you want me to do what you do not have the balls to do?

Typical Repub , always wanting others to do what they do not have the balls to do
 
I am still waiting for you to present your evidence

Of course you are. You don't answer questions, you just ask them. When you're ready to have two way discussions, let me know. It's called a conversation

I will be happy to answer all of your questions.

I asked for one example that you have not yet given, do that and then feel free to ask away


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
 
Government even used kindergarteners without parental permission to push their gun grabbing agenda.

Students across the nation walked out of school Wednesday in honor of the victims of the Parkland shooting last month, including a group of New London kindergarteners.

“We love school! We love school,” children in New London are chanting in a video posted on Facebook.

While people involved in the walkout involving a group of 5-year-olds at Harbor Elementary School said the demonstration was about school safety, student safety and parent permission have been called into question.

“It was discussed, it was a safety march and we took them out and they chanted ‘we love school’ and ‘honk your horn.’ And we told them that the 17 angels are above in heaven, they’re watching down and they’re proud,” one parent, Olga Vokolou, said.

New London Kindergartners Walkout Drums Up Concerns
 
Again, was it unjust? You don't have the information to make that call.

Double standards? Again, you don't have the information to make that call.

I have the same information you have so, until we get more info on the events leading up to the suspension, if you can assume it was justified, I can assume it wasn't.

Going strictly by the information we have, it sounds like the students organized the protest, that it would be political in nature as opposed to a memorial for the kids killed in Florida, and that the teachers either endorsed it or just went along. If that is the case, this means the school allowed the students to dictate the course of events and put the administration in a position where they then had to give the other kids the two choices as to joining the walkout or going to study hall.
Jacob Shoemaker was not comfortable with these choices because he felt that to do either one would be viewed as taking a stand on the issue and he didn't feel that was right. Plus, he got lots of kudos from other students but he also said a lot of them said nasty things about him such as that he was an awful person and a gun nut who cared nothing for the kids that were killed. This in spite of the fact that he chose to stay in the classroom rather than study hall.

Here is a video of an interview with him by Fox News.

Oh, he was uncomfortable with the choices. Many kids are uncomfortable with the choices that are made for them at school. Some go and get themselves suspended, others do what they're told.

Most of the choices made for the students are not political in nature so yes, he was uncomfortable with the choices and he was justified in feeling that way. And there's a difference between not wanting to take a test, where the only undesirable aspect is that one will have to do some work and study for it, and being placed in a position of having to choose a side on a political issue that may draw ire and antipathy from half the student body. That was his main concern and as it turns out, he was right. In spite of the fact that he chose to remain neutral and remain in the classroom, they still accused him of not caring for the students that were killed and called him all sorts of vile names.

Maybe those in charge of the school actually agree with the nature of the political protest. However there's nothing wrong with student input into school decisions.

If what some are saying is true, the school made no decisions other than to go along with the students' wishes. In other words, there was no "input" from the students, they and they alone decided what was to transpire.

Students should not be treated as merely drones.

Does that include those who do not wish to follow the crowd and bring politics to school?

Having students actively engage in politics, especially when they're going to be voters in 2,3 or 4 years time would appear to be the right thing to do.

It is the school's responsibility to educate the students on politics, that's it. There's nothing wrong with encouraging them to get involved, just encourage them to get involved in the community, not at school.

The video, this kid said "I didn't like that there was choice."

So, he made a choice, because he didn't like having to make a choice. What?

So he wanted to be told what to do, when told what to do, he refused to do it.

The he said "students should be able to make a choice and not be forced into a situation by the officials in their school"

Again, this kid is advocating NO CHOICE and CHOICE.

It's not that they made him make a choice, it's that they made him make a choice on a political issue that he felt had no business on school grounds. There's a difference.

There are distinctions here that you and most of those arguing on behalf of the school are overlooking. You make it look like it was just some punk kid being rebellious when you know that is not the case.

I'm not attacking this kid. He's a kid, he's been thrown on FOX and they're trying to make something out of this. He clearly hasn't thought about this properly and potentially he's hiding something. Still no blame for him. I'd do the same thing.

No one "threw him" on Fox, he had the choice to decline the interview. And your disagreeing with him is no indication that he hadn't thought about it properly. Also, it could be that "Potentially he's hiding something" but by the same token, he's potentially not hiding something.

The school responded by saying "we do not leave students unattended in classrooms"

So the school had no choice.

The school had the choice of stopping the walkout and allowing it to take place after school hours.

So it wasn't forcing him to make a political choice. If you're not participating in this thing, the default mode is "study hall", he decided this was a political thing when it wasn't.

Given that some of the ones who joined the walkout criticized him and called him "gun nut", I would say that they are the ones who made it a political thing. It was precisely this sort of thing he was trying to avoid when he chose to stay in class but, given the attitude of the pro-gun control crowd and a lot of other liberal minded people, no matter what else he may have done in regards to the walkout, as long as he didn't join the walkout, he's an uncaring,vile gun nut.

And we're still back where we started.

He chose to on Fox. Yeah, he thought going to a study hall would make it look like he's political, and he didn't want that, so he went on FOX NEWS.

The walkout was organized by the Youth Empower branch of the Womens' March and was political from the start. The walkout was specifically done to call for a ban on assault weapons and other gun control measures. Do you not know this?

And what didn't he say? He didn't mention how they got him to leave the classroom. He left, he was suspended for the rest of the day. Why? Again, we don't know, and he doesn't say. Why? Because probably he did something wrong, maybe the school doesn't want the rest of the world to know what he did wrong. This boy knows, and he's not saying.

It's fishy.

If your only approach to this issue is "probably, maybe, could be, could have been...", you've already convinced yourself he's guilty and in the wrong.

Yes, it's political. It impacts kids in their schools.

Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?

No, I haven't convinced myself he's wrong.

As I said, things don't add up. Did I say "he's guilty of something"?

No, I suspect he might be because it's fishy. But I don't have full information.

One thing is knowing. Another is suspecting.

So if I suspect, I haven't decided he's guilty.
 
I have the same information you have so, until we get more info on the events leading up to the suspension, if you can assume it was justified, I can assume it wasn't.

Going strictly by the information we have, it sounds like the students organized the protest, that it would be political in nature as opposed to a memorial for the kids killed in Florida, and that the teachers either endorsed it or just went along. If that is the case, this means the school allowed the students to dictate the course of events and put the administration in a position where they then had to give the other kids the two choices as to joining the walkout or going to study hall.
Jacob Shoemaker was not comfortable with these choices because he felt that to do either one would be viewed as taking a stand on the issue and he didn't feel that was right. Plus, he got lots of kudos from other students but he also said a lot of them said nasty things about him such as that he was an awful person and a gun nut who cared nothing for the kids that were killed. This in spite of the fact that he chose to stay in the classroom rather than study hall.

Here is a video of an interview with him by Fox News.

Oh, he was uncomfortable with the choices. Many kids are uncomfortable with the choices that are made for them at school. Some go and get themselves suspended, others do what they're told.

Most of the choices made for the students are not political in nature so yes, he was uncomfortable with the choices and he was justified in feeling that way. And there's a difference between not wanting to take a test, where the only undesirable aspect is that one will have to do some work and study for it, and being placed in a position of having to choose a side on a political issue that may draw ire and antipathy from half the student body. That was his main concern and as it turns out, he was right. In spite of the fact that he chose to remain neutral and remain in the classroom, they still accused him of not caring for the students that were killed and called him all sorts of vile names.

Maybe those in charge of the school actually agree with the nature of the political protest. However there's nothing wrong with student input into school decisions.

If what some are saying is true, the school made no decisions other than to go along with the students' wishes. In other words, there was no "input" from the students, they and they alone decided what was to transpire.

Students should not be treated as merely drones.

Does that include those who do not wish to follow the crowd and bring politics to school?

Having students actively engage in politics, especially when they're going to be voters in 2,3 or 4 years time would appear to be the right thing to do.

It is the school's responsibility to educate the students on politics, that's it. There's nothing wrong with encouraging them to get involved, just encourage them to get involved in the community, not at school.

The video, this kid said "I didn't like that there was choice."

So, he made a choice, because he didn't like having to make a choice. What?

So he wanted to be told what to do, when told what to do, he refused to do it.

The he said "students should be able to make a choice and not be forced into a situation by the officials in their school"

Again, this kid is advocating NO CHOICE and CHOICE.

It's not that they made him make a choice, it's that they made him make a choice on a political issue that he felt had no business on school grounds. There's a difference.

There are distinctions here that you and most of those arguing on behalf of the school are overlooking. You make it look like it was just some punk kid being rebellious when you know that is not the case.

I'm not attacking this kid. He's a kid, he's been thrown on FOX and they're trying to make something out of this. He clearly hasn't thought about this properly and potentially he's hiding something. Still no blame for him. I'd do the same thing.

No one "threw him" on Fox, he had the choice to decline the interview. And your disagreeing with him is no indication that he hadn't thought about it properly. Also, it could be that "Potentially he's hiding something" but by the same token, he's potentially not hiding something.

The school responded by saying "we do not leave students unattended in classrooms"

So the school had no choice.

The school had the choice of stopping the walkout and allowing it to take place after school hours.

So it wasn't forcing him to make a political choice. If you're not participating in this thing, the default mode is "study hall", he decided this was a political thing when it wasn't.

Given that some of the ones who joined the walkout criticized him and called him "gun nut", I would say that they are the ones who made it a political thing. It was precisely this sort of thing he was trying to avoid when he chose to stay in class but, given the attitude of the pro-gun control crowd and a lot of other liberal minded people, no matter what else he may have done in regards to the walkout, as long as he didn't join the walkout, he's an uncaring,vile gun nut.

And we're still back where we started.

He chose to on Fox. Yeah, he thought going to a study hall would make it look like he's political, and he didn't want that, so he went on FOX NEWS.

The walkout was organized by the Youth Empower branch of the Womens' March and was political from the start. The walkout was specifically done to call for a ban on assault weapons and other gun control measures. Do you not know this?

And what didn't he say? He didn't mention how they got him to leave the classroom. He left, he was suspended for the rest of the day. Why? Again, we don't know, and he doesn't say. Why? Because probably he did something wrong, maybe the school doesn't want the rest of the world to know what he did wrong. This boy knows, and he's not saying.

It's fishy.

If your only approach to this issue is "probably, maybe, could be, could have been...", you've already convinced yourself he's guilty and in the wrong.

Yes, it's political. It impacts kids in their schools.

Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?

I have made it clear on more than one occasion that I have no problem with kids protesting or speaking their minds on political issues. I just don't feel that school is the place for it.

How many times am I going to have to tell you that?

No, I haven't convinced myself he's wrong.

As I said, things don't add up. Did I say "he's guilty of something"?

No, I suspect he might be because it's fishy. But I don't have full information.

One thing is knowing. Another is suspecting.

So if I suspect, I haven't decided he's guilty.

I really don't understand why you think there is something "fishy" going on. They told him to join the protest or go to study hall and he chose to remain in the class and they punished him for it. What is it, exactly, that makes this seem fishy to you?
 
Oh, he was uncomfortable with the choices. Many kids are uncomfortable with the choices that are made for them at school. Some go and get themselves suspended, others do what they're told.

Most of the choices made for the students are not political in nature so yes, he was uncomfortable with the choices and he was justified in feeling that way. And there's a difference between not wanting to take a test, where the only undesirable aspect is that one will have to do some work and study for it, and being placed in a position of having to choose a side on a political issue that may draw ire and antipathy from half the student body. That was his main concern and as it turns out, he was right. In spite of the fact that he chose to remain neutral and remain in the classroom, they still accused him of not caring for the students that were killed and called him all sorts of vile names.

Maybe those in charge of the school actually agree with the nature of the political protest. However there's nothing wrong with student input into school decisions.

If what some are saying is true, the school made no decisions other than to go along with the students' wishes. In other words, there was no "input" from the students, they and they alone decided what was to transpire.

Students should not be treated as merely drones.

Does that include those who do not wish to follow the crowd and bring politics to school?

Having students actively engage in politics, especially when they're going to be voters in 2,3 or 4 years time would appear to be the right thing to do.

It is the school's responsibility to educate the students on politics, that's it. There's nothing wrong with encouraging them to get involved, just encourage them to get involved in the community, not at school.

The video, this kid said "I didn't like that there was choice."

So, he made a choice, because he didn't like having to make a choice. What?

So he wanted to be told what to do, when told what to do, he refused to do it.

The he said "students should be able to make a choice and not be forced into a situation by the officials in their school"

Again, this kid is advocating NO CHOICE and CHOICE.

It's not that they made him make a choice, it's that they made him make a choice on a political issue that he felt had no business on school grounds. There's a difference.

There are distinctions here that you and most of those arguing on behalf of the school are overlooking. You make it look like it was just some punk kid being rebellious when you know that is not the case.

I'm not attacking this kid. He's a kid, he's been thrown on FOX and they're trying to make something out of this. He clearly hasn't thought about this properly and potentially he's hiding something. Still no blame for him. I'd do the same thing.

No one "threw him" on Fox, he had the choice to decline the interview. And your disagreeing with him is no indication that he hadn't thought about it properly. Also, it could be that "Potentially he's hiding something" but by the same token, he's potentially not hiding something.

The school responded by saying "we do not leave students unattended in classrooms"

So the school had no choice.

The school had the choice of stopping the walkout and allowing it to take place after school hours.

So it wasn't forcing him to make a political choice. If you're not participating in this thing, the default mode is "study hall", he decided this was a political thing when it wasn't.

Given that some of the ones who joined the walkout criticized him and called him "gun nut", I would say that they are the ones who made it a political thing. It was precisely this sort of thing he was trying to avoid when he chose to stay in class but, given the attitude of the pro-gun control crowd and a lot of other liberal minded people, no matter what else he may have done in regards to the walkout, as long as he didn't join the walkout, he's an uncaring,vile gun nut.

And we're still back where we started.

He chose to on Fox. Yeah, he thought going to a study hall would make it look like he's political, and he didn't want that, so he went on FOX NEWS.

The walkout was organized by the Youth Empower branch of the Womens' March and was political from the start. The walkout was specifically done to call for a ban on assault weapons and other gun control measures. Do you not know this?

And what didn't he say? He didn't mention how they got him to leave the classroom. He left, he was suspended for the rest of the day. Why? Again, we don't know, and he doesn't say. Why? Because probably he did something wrong, maybe the school doesn't want the rest of the world to know what he did wrong. This boy knows, and he's not saying.

It's fishy.

If your only approach to this issue is "probably, maybe, could be, could have been...", you've already convinced yourself he's guilty and in the wrong.

Yes, it's political. It impacts kids in their schools.

Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?

I have made it clear on more than one occasion that I have no problem with kids protesting or speaking their minds on political issues. I just don't feel that school is the place for it.

How many times am I going to have to tell you that?

No, I haven't convinced myself he's wrong.

As I said, things don't add up. Did I say "he's guilty of something"?

No, I suspect he might be because it's fishy. But I don't have full information.

One thing is knowing. Another is suspecting.

So if I suspect, I haven't decided he's guilty.

I really don't understand why you think there is something "fishy" going on. They told him to join the protest or go to study hall and he chose to remain in the class and they punished him for it. What is it, exactly, that makes this seem fishy to you?

Yes, you keep telling me stuff. I get that you're telling me stuff. Doesn't make you right.

Okay, we've done this topic to death. I'm pulling out now.
 
Government even used kindergarteners without parental permission to push their gun grabbing agenda.

Students across the nation walked out of school Wednesday in honor of the victims of the Parkland shooting last month, including a group of New London kindergarteners.

“We love school! We love school,” children in New London are chanting in a video posted on Facebook.

While people involved in the walkout involving a group of 5-year-olds at Harbor Elementary School said the demonstration was about school safety, student safety and parent permission have been called into question.

“It was discussed, it was a safety march and we took them out and they chanted ‘we love school’ and ‘honk your horn.’ And we told them that the 17 angels are above in heaven, they’re watching down and they’re proud,” one parent, Olga Vokolou, said.

New London Kindergartners Walkout Drums Up Concerns

Yeah, that is pretty stupid.
 
Most of the choices made for the students are not political in nature so yes, he was uncomfortable with the choices and he was justified in feeling that way. And there's a difference between not wanting to take a test, where the only undesirable aspect is that one will have to do some work and study for it, and being placed in a position of having to choose a side on a political issue that may draw ire and antipathy from half the student body. That was his main concern and as it turns out, he was right. In spite of the fact that he chose to remain neutral and remain in the classroom, they still accused him of not caring for the students that were killed and called him all sorts of vile names.

If what some are saying is true, the school made no decisions other than to go along with the students' wishes. In other words, there was no "input" from the students, they and they alone decided what was to transpire.

Does that include those who do not wish to follow the crowd and bring politics to school?

It is the school's responsibility to educate the students on politics, that's it. There's nothing wrong with encouraging them to get involved, just encourage them to get involved in the community, not at school.

It's not that they made him make a choice, it's that they made him make a choice on a political issue that he felt had no business on school grounds. There's a difference.

There are distinctions here that you and most of those arguing on behalf of the school are overlooking. You make it look like it was just some punk kid being rebellious when you know that is not the case.

No one "threw him" on Fox, he had the choice to decline the interview. And your disagreeing with him is no indication that he hadn't thought about it properly. Also, it could be that "Potentially he's hiding something" but by the same token, he's potentially not hiding something.

The school had the choice of stopping the walkout and allowing it to take place after school hours.

Given that some of the ones who joined the walkout criticized him and called him "gun nut", I would say that they are the ones who made it a political thing. It was precisely this sort of thing he was trying to avoid when he chose to stay in class but, given the attitude of the pro-gun control crowd and a lot of other liberal minded people, no matter what else he may have done in regards to the walkout, as long as he didn't join the walkout, he's an uncaring,vile gun nut.

And we're still back where we started.

He chose to on Fox. Yeah, he thought going to a study hall would make it look like he's political, and he didn't want that, so he went on FOX NEWS.

The walkout was organized by the Youth Empower branch of the Womens' March and was political from the start. The walkout was specifically done to call for a ban on assault weapons and other gun control measures. Do you not know this?

And what didn't he say? He didn't mention how they got him to leave the classroom. He left, he was suspended for the rest of the day. Why? Again, we don't know, and he doesn't say. Why? Because probably he did something wrong, maybe the school doesn't want the rest of the world to know what he did wrong. This boy knows, and he's not saying.

It's fishy.

If your only approach to this issue is "probably, maybe, could be, could have been...", you've already convinced yourself he's guilty and in the wrong.

Yes, it's political. It impacts kids in their schools.

Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?

I have made it clear on more than one occasion that I have no problem with kids protesting or speaking their minds on political issues. I just don't feel that school is the place for it.

How many times am I going to have to tell you that?

No, I haven't convinced myself he's wrong.

As I said, things don't add up. Did I say "he's guilty of something"?

No, I suspect he might be because it's fishy. But I don't have full information.

One thing is knowing. Another is suspecting.

So if I suspect, I haven't decided he's guilty.

I really don't understand why you think there is something "fishy" going on. They told him to join the protest or go to study hall and he chose to remain in the class and they punished him for it. What is it, exactly, that makes this seem fishy to you?

Yes, you keep telling me stuff. I get that you're telling me stuff. Doesn't make you right.

Okay, we've done this topic to death. I'm pulling out now.

When I told you that I was referring to this remark from you:

"Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?"

So telling you multiple times that I have no problem with kids protesting and getting involved in political issues doesn't make me right?
 
And we're still back where we started.

He chose to on Fox. Yeah, he thought going to a study hall would make it look like he's political, and he didn't want that, so he went on FOX NEWS.

The walkout was organized by the Youth Empower branch of the Womens' March and was political from the start. The walkout was specifically done to call for a ban on assault weapons and other gun control measures. Do you not know this?

And what didn't he say? He didn't mention how they got him to leave the classroom. He left, he was suspended for the rest of the day. Why? Again, we don't know, and he doesn't say. Why? Because probably he did something wrong, maybe the school doesn't want the rest of the world to know what he did wrong. This boy knows, and he's not saying.

It's fishy.

If your only approach to this issue is "probably, maybe, could be, could have been...", you've already convinced yourself he's guilty and in the wrong.

Yes, it's political. It impacts kids in their schools.

Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?

I have made it clear on more than one occasion that I have no problem with kids protesting or speaking their minds on political issues. I just don't feel that school is the place for it.

How many times am I going to have to tell you that?

No, I haven't convinced myself he's wrong.

As I said, things don't add up. Did I say "he's guilty of something"?

No, I suspect he might be because it's fishy. But I don't have full information.

One thing is knowing. Another is suspecting.

So if I suspect, I haven't decided he's guilty.

I really don't understand why you think there is something "fishy" going on. They told him to join the protest or go to study hall and he chose to remain in the class and they punished him for it. What is it, exactly, that makes this seem fishy to you?

Yes, you keep telling me stuff. I get that you're telling me stuff. Doesn't make you right.

Okay, we've done this topic to death. I'm pulling out now.

When I told you that I was referring to this remark from you:

"Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?"

So telling you multiple times that I have no problem with kids protesting and getting involved in political issues doesn't make me right?
Only white men with guns make society less safe?
Who knew?
 
The walkout was organized by the Youth Empower branch of the Womens' March and was political from the start. The walkout was specifically done to call for a ban on assault weapons and other gun control measures. Do you not know this?

If your only approach to this issue is "probably, maybe, could be, could have been...", you've already convinced yourself he's guilty and in the wrong.

Yes, it's political. It impacts kids in their schools.

Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?

I have made it clear on more than one occasion that I have no problem with kids protesting or speaking their minds on political issues. I just don't feel that school is the place for it.

How many times am I going to have to tell you that?

No, I haven't convinced myself he's wrong.

As I said, things don't add up. Did I say "he's guilty of something"?

No, I suspect he might be because it's fishy. But I don't have full information.

One thing is knowing. Another is suspecting.

So if I suspect, I haven't decided he's guilty.

I really don't understand why you think there is something "fishy" going on. They told him to join the protest or go to study hall and he chose to remain in the class and they punished him for it. What is it, exactly, that makes this seem fishy to you?

Yes, you keep telling me stuff. I get that you're telling me stuff. Doesn't make you right.

Okay, we've done this topic to death. I'm pulling out now.

When I told you that I was referring to this remark from you:

"Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?"

So telling you multiple times that I have no problem with kids protesting and getting involved in political issues doesn't make me right?
Only white men with guns make society less safe?
Who knew?

Oh sure. You didn't know that? I've learned lots of things from liberals over the past few years. I've learned that supporting the 2nd Amendment makes me a gun nut. I've learned that owning firearms makes me and the NRA complicit in firearm murders committed by someone else. I've learned that my white skin makes me racist. I've learned that advocating for better immigration control makes me a nazi. I've learned that merely being a Trump supporter makes me a racist (and a nazi). Criticizing Black Lives matter rioters and looters makes me a nazi (and a racist). I've learned that being conservative makes me a nazi-racist. And finally, I've learned that not being a democrat makes me a racist-nazi.

When I think about it though, I don't think we have enough. They need to come up with more stupid things that make me a racist-nazi-nazi-racist. After all, we can never have too much racism or nazism because without it, liberals will have no purpose in life. Or so it seems.
 
Yes, it's political. It impacts kids in their schools.

Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?

I have made it clear on more than one occasion that I have no problem with kids protesting or speaking their minds on political issues. I just don't feel that school is the place for it.

How many times am I going to have to tell you that?

No, I haven't convinced myself he's wrong.

As I said, things don't add up. Did I say "he's guilty of something"?

No, I suspect he might be because it's fishy. But I don't have full information.

One thing is knowing. Another is suspecting.

So if I suspect, I haven't decided he's guilty.

I really don't understand why you think there is something "fishy" going on. They told him to join the protest or go to study hall and he chose to remain in the class and they punished him for it. What is it, exactly, that makes this seem fishy to you?

Yes, you keep telling me stuff. I get that you're telling me stuff. Doesn't make you right.

Okay, we've done this topic to death. I'm pulling out now.

When I told you that I was referring to this remark from you:

"Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?"

So telling you multiple times that I have no problem with kids protesting and getting involved in political issues doesn't make me right?
Only white men with guns make society less safe?
Who knew?

Oh sure. You didn't know that? I've learned lots of things from liberals over the past few years. I've learned that supporting the 2nd Amendment makes me a gun nut. I've learned that owning firearms makes me and the NRA complicit in firearm murders committed by someone else. I've learned that my white skin makes me racist. I've learned that advocating for better immigration control makes me a nazi. I've learned that merely being a Trump supporter makes me a racist (and a nazi). Criticizing Black Lives matter rioters and looters makes me a nazi (and a racist). I've learned that being conservative makes me a nazi-racist. And finally, I've learned that not being a democrat makes me a racist-nazi.

When I think about it though, I don't think we have enough. They need to come up with more stupid things that make me a racist-nazi-nazi-racist. After all, we can never have too much racism or nazism because without it, liberals will have no purpose in life. Or so it seems.
Spot on!
But...but....but you forgot the ‘phobes’....and you must be guilty of being a micro/nanoaggressor too! :eek:
 
How dare that malcontent wish to learn rather than stage a useless protest that would make Mao and his Red Guards blush. Taxpayer funded schools have a duty to push political issues on impressionable kids! Make him an example, that'll show the little twerp he needs to stop thinking for himself.

Ohio student suspended for staying in class during walkouts

You get three guesses where that happened and first two don't count. Hilliard High School where I graduated with a 2.73 GPA.
 
I have made it clear on more than one occasion that I have no problem with kids protesting or speaking their minds on political issues. I just don't feel that school is the place for it.

How many times am I going to have to tell you that?

I really don't understand why you think there is something "fishy" going on. They told him to join the protest or go to study hall and he chose to remain in the class and they punished him for it. What is it, exactly, that makes this seem fishy to you?

Yes, you keep telling me stuff. I get that you're telling me stuff. Doesn't make you right.

Okay, we've done this topic to death. I'm pulling out now.

When I told you that I was referring to this remark from you:

"Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?"

So telling you multiple times that I have no problem with kids protesting and getting involved in political issues doesn't make me right?
Only white men with guns make society less safe?
Who knew?

Oh sure. You didn't know that? I've learned lots of things from liberals over the past few years. I've learned that supporting the 2nd Amendment makes me a gun nut. I've learned that owning firearms makes me and the NRA complicit in firearm murders committed by someone else. I've learned that my white skin makes me racist. I've learned that advocating for better immigration control makes me a nazi. I've learned that merely being a Trump supporter makes me a racist (and a nazi). Criticizing Black Lives matter rioters and looters makes me a nazi (and a racist). I've learned that being conservative makes me a nazi-racist. And finally, I've learned that not being a democrat makes me a racist-nazi.

When I think about it though, I don't think we have enough. They need to come up with more stupid things that make me a racist-nazi-nazi-racist. After all, we can never have too much racism or nazism because without it, liberals will have no purpose in life. Or so it seems.
Spot on!
But...but....but you forgot the ‘phobes’....and you must be guilty of being a micro/nanoaggressor too! :eek:

I was going to but I had to cut it short because I inadvertently offended someone when I scratched my nose so I had to beg their forgiveness.
 
The kid was given two choices and he choose neither, thus was punished.

I thought you Trump zealots supported following the rules.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not when you change the rules to fit an agenda based on a politically charged false narrative.

The school rules are that students are not to be alone in classrooms, that rule did not change.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Sure it did. It changed when the teacher wasn't there to teach the class like he/she was supposed to be. I'm glad this is getting press.

The rule did not change, the location of the teacher has no bearing on the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You would agree with me if the teacher walked out to join a Trump rally. Whatever fits your agenda.
 
I have made it clear on more than one occasion that I have no problem with kids protesting or speaking their minds on political issues. I just don't feel that school is the place for it.

How many times am I going to have to tell you that?

I really don't understand why you think there is something "fishy" going on. They told him to join the protest or go to study hall and he chose to remain in the class and they punished him for it. What is it, exactly, that makes this seem fishy to you?

Yes, you keep telling me stuff. I get that you're telling me stuff. Doesn't make you right.

Okay, we've done this topic to death. I'm pulling out now.

When I told you that I was referring to this remark from you:

"Should they not have opinions? Should they not protest when white men with their guns make their society less safe, their schools less safe?"

So telling you multiple times that I have no problem with kids protesting and getting involved in political issues doesn't make me right?
Only white men with guns make society less safe?
Who knew?

Oh sure. You didn't know that? I've learned lots of things from liberals over the past few years. I've learned that supporting the 2nd Amendment makes me a gun nut. I've learned that owning firearms makes me and the NRA complicit in firearm murders committed by someone else. I've learned that my white skin makes me racist. I've learned that advocating for better immigration control makes me a nazi. I've learned that merely being a Trump supporter makes me a racist (and a nazi). Criticizing Black Lives matter rioters and looters makes me a nazi (and a racist). I've learned that being conservative makes me a nazi-racist. And finally, I've learned that not being a democrat makes me a racist-nazi.

When I think about it though, I don't think we have enough. They need to come up with more stupid things that make me a racist-nazi-nazi-racist. After all, we can never have too much racism or nazism because without it, liberals will have no purpose in life. Or so it seems.
Spot on!
But...but....but you forgot the ‘phobes’....and you must be guilty of being a micro/nanoaggressor too! :eek:

Prolly hates women and "mansplains" a lot, as well.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top