• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teacher Ridicules Student for Romney T-Shirt

Not really, you are just having a comprehension problem. The Hitler example is meant to show that students in school do NOT have the same freedom of speech rights that adults do. If the school determined all political apparel was disruptive, they could prohibit it. The example of the young woman was merely to illustrate the old principle that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If the girl ends up getting beaten up over this incident, as she claims she is fearful will happen, I think it outweighs the questionable gain of wearing a shirt parroting her parents views in an environment where it is unlikely she swayed anyone's voting preference.

Again and again you ignore the school distrist's comments that the girl broke no rules and was exercising her freedom of speech - read the damn article. Or listen to any one of the news reports. What the district "could do" isn't the issue, the district has not banned political apparel.

If you took the time to listen a bit before you went all partisan knee-jerk you'd know this was the students' free dress day. Not to mention the girl is an honor student at the school.
 
Not really, you are just having a comprehension problem. The Hitler example is meant to show that students in school do NOT have the same freedom of speech rights that adults do. If the school determined all political apparel was disruptive, they could prohibit it. The example of the young woman was merely to illustrate the old principle that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If the girl ends up getting beaten up over this incident, as she claims she is fearful will happen, I think it outweighs the questionable gain of wearing a shirt parroting her parents views in an environment where it is unlikely she swayed anyone's voting preference.

The kool-aid surges deeps through your veins, grasshopper.
 
Again and again you ignore the school distrist's comments that the girl broke no rules and was exercising her freedom of speech - read the damn article. Or listen to any one of the news reports. What the district "could do" isn't the issue, the district has not banned political apparel.

If you took the time to listen a bit before you went all partisan knee-jerk you'd know this was the students' free dress day. Not to mention the girl is an honor student at the school.

Maybe if you actually read posts before responding to them it would clear things up. Please show me where I have ever claimed the girl broke any rules? You can't because I haven't. I have said that I believe schools SHOULD prohibit all clothing with any political endorsement as inappropriate for the environment and I have pointed out that the precedent is that they can set acceptable standards of dress outside the normal freedom of speech model much as an employer can. The most I have said about the girl and her family is that I suspect this was an act intended to incite a response possibly with the goal of financial gain through a lawsuit. I have also expressed that her parents showed poor judgment in allowing her to wear the item IF the possibility of violence from other students is real and not a creation of their imagination. A relatively meaningless political gesture is not worth a beaten or killed child.
 
The kool-aid surges deeps through your veins, grasshopper.

You are really going to tell me that a sixteen year old has a firm grasp of the actual issues involved and isn't just reflecting what her parents have exposed her to? Give me a friggin break. Someone who has never held a job they needed to support themselves on, lived outside their parents home where all necessities are provided, or had any real world experience outside the artificial environs of the classroom couldn't have any but the shallowest reasons for supporting one candidate over another. It's probably why we don't let people vote until they are 18.
 
You are really going to tell me that a sixteen year old has a firm grasp of the actual issues involved and isn't just reflecting what her parents have exposed her to? Give me a friggin break.

I guess you've never met an honor student. This is just hackery, which everyone keeps saying, and I agree, is your motif.
 
I guess you've never met an honor student. This is just hackery, which everyone keeps saying, and I agree, is your motif.

I was an honor student skippy, and most of my friends in high school were too. The political views at 16 of all of them were extremely close to their parents with few exceptions(legalization of pot comes to mind). It's just like religion. You show me a devout 16 year old and the odds are heavily in favor of their parents being the same way.
 
I was an honor student skippy, and most of my friends in high school were too. The political views at 16 of all of them were extremely close to their parents with few exceptions(legalization of pot comes to mind). It's just like religion. You show me a devout 16 year old and the odds are heavily in favor of their parents being the same way.

Yeah, it just happens that she wears the shirt you wouldn't want her to, and it MUST be because she's parroting her parents. Tell me, who are the students who would beat her up, as you think is a natural reaction, "parroting"? Apparently the parents who support your side of things.

I guess as an honor student, you never figured out the fallacy in generalizing out to everyone what you and your friends did. In any case, I counter your anecdote with mine -- at 16, my views were well-developed and QUITE distinct from my parents', and I can say the same for my friends.

So don't assume that someone else is a "parrot" just because you and your little friends were.
 
Maybe if you actually read posts before responding to them it would clear things up. Please show me where I have ever claimed the girl broke any rules? You can't because I haven't. I have said that I believe schools SHOULD prohibit all clothing with any political endorsement as inappropriate for the environment and I have pointed out that the precedent is that they can set acceptable standards of dress outside the normal freedom of speech model much as an employer can. The most I have said about the girl and her family is that I suspect this was an act intended to incite a response possibly with the goal of financial gain through a lawsuit. I have also expressed that her parents showed poor judgment in allowing her to wear the item IF the possibility of violence from other students is real and not a creation of their imagination. A relatively meaningless political gesture is not worth a beaten or killed child.

Oh I read your posts, and they are the same each time, partisan excusing of what this teacher did and a smokescreen of how the schools should be restricting dress. All this BS about "acceptable standards of dress" is an obvious dodge on your part to avoid what this teacher did.

The ONLY thing that leads you to your off the wall suspicion is your own partisan blinders. And again, if the possibility of violence is real in that school, due to wearing a t-shirt, the staff should be immediately fired and the school shut. But even here you fail to note that the one inciting the violence is the teacher.

You give her a pass solely because she is an Obamabot like you.
 
Yeah, it just happens that she wears the shirt you wouldn't want her to, and it MUST be because she's parroting her parents. Tell me, who are the students who would beat her up, as you think is a natural reaction, "parroting"? Apparently the parents who support your side of things.

I guess as an honor student, you never figured out the fallacy in generalizing out to everyone what you and your friends did. In any case, I counter your anecdote with mine -- at 16, my views were well-developed and QUITE distinct from my parents', and I can say the same for my friends.

So don't assume that someone else is a "parrot" just because you and your little friends were.

Do a little research into sociology and then tell me the odds don't favor my interpretation over yours. Hell, it was probably her parents that bought or procured the shirt for her. Just because you and your little clique in high school expressed rebellion against parental authority in an odd way doesn't make it the norm. The norm is most people form their own world view after they leave their parents' home and either enter the workforce or college. It is part of your obvious partisan prejudice to assume I wouldn't say the same thing if the tables were turned and an Obama shirt had been the center of the incident. I think it must be a key trait of the modern right to believe that everyone is as unscrupulous as they are. I guess when you go around calling people "Obamabots", thus implying they have no free will, it just follows that they would always fit your stereotypical perception of them. I haven't said it isn't possible the girl's views are diametrically opposed to her parents'. The chances are just very small given the circumstances and regardless of where they originate from they can't be based on any real and substantial life experience because she has none. As for the motivation of the students who may or may not attack her over this, who knows? Maybe the teacher in question is extremely popular with the student body in general. I imagine it has more to do with the pack mentality that dominates high school where anyone setting themselves outside the assumed and accepted behavior is painted as a target. Not endorsing it but that's the way it is.
 
And again, NONE of that matters in this issue. A girl wore an appropriate t-shirt that she was allowed to wear by district and school policy and a teacher abused her for it. Your forays into the sociology of high schoolers (which you clearly don't understand) are as nonsensical as they are moot.
 
Do a little research into sociology and then tell me the odds don't favor my interpretation over yours.

I have, and they don't. Even if they did, it's not your place to make the assumption.

Hell, it was probably her parents that bought or procured the shirt for her.

Good God, the assumptions never stop. :roll:

Just because you and your little clique in high school expressed rebellion against parental authority in an odd way doesn't make it the norm.

Didn't claim it did. You, however, claim your experience does.

It is part of your obvious partisan prejudice to assume I wouldn't say the same thing if the tables were turned and an Obama shirt had been the center of the incident.

No, it's part of my observation of YOU.

I think it must be a key trait of the modern right to believe that everyone is as unscrupulous as they are. I guess when you go around calling people "Obamabots"

And I've done this, where? Gosh, generalize some more; you have a knack for it.

I know many liberals who aren't hacks. You, however, are not one. Thank you for proving it nearly line-by-line.

I haven't said it isn't possible the girl's views are diametrically opposed to her parents'.

You said she was "parroting her parent's views" with no qualification, and you defended it when called on it, so yes, in fact, you have.

If you want to backpedal from it now, as of course you SHOULD, so noted.

The chances are just very small given the circumstances and regardless of where they originate from they can't be based on any real and substantial life experience because she has none.

That doesn't mean they are either insincere OR programmed by her parents.

As for the motivation of the students who may or may not attack her over this, who knows?

Apparently you think YOU did, when you said it was only natural that they would because she wore the shirt. Backpedaling from that now, too?
 
Oh I read your posts, and they are the same each time, partisan excusing of what this teacher did and a smokescreen of how the schools should be restricting dress. All this BS about "acceptable standards of dress" is an obvious dodge on your part to avoid what this teacher did.

The ONLY thing that leads you to your off the wall suspicion is your own partisan blinders. And again, if the possibility of violence is real in that school, due to wearing a t-shirt, the staff should be immediately fired and the school shut. But even here you fail to note that the one inciting the violence is the teacher.

You give her a pass solely because she is an Obamabot like you.

So are you vehemently opposed to school uniforms? Are you aware of the rational behind schools adopting them? There is always a possibility that any polarizing statement expressed through attire will incite violence in a group where the majority holds a view in opposition to it. It is just human nature. Someone wearing a shirt supporting a sports rival just prior to a big game against them would probably invoke a violent response. You have no proof whatsoever the teacher is inciting violence or even(that I've seen) that the threat of violence has been confirmed and isn't a creation of the girl and her parents. I also haven't excused what the teacher did. I believe in my first post on the subject I made it clear I felt she reacted in a manner that deserves disciplinary action. It is just my opinion that many of these instances we frequently see these days are, in at least some part, instigated by parents looking for publicity for their cause or financial gain through later legal action. I don't think it is at all "off the wall" to think someone might plan and execute such a scheme in a society where people jump in front of cars so they can sue the driver. I just find it typical of the right that so many of you sympathized completely with the Texas assistant principal who paddled a female student to the point of bruising and in direct violation of current school policy yet act like this incident is the greatest abuse of power ever. BTW, what was the Texas girl's offense again? Oh yeah, she mouthed off to the administrator. Funny how you didn't see that as free speech.
 
Um, wow. That is really messed up. That teacher should be fired and never allowed to work around students again. Harassing and bullying your own students... Good lord.
 
So are you vehemently opposed to school uniforms? Are you aware of the rational behind schools adopting them? There is always a possibility that any polarizing statement expressed through attire will incite violence in a group where the majority holds a view in opposition to it. It is just human nature. Someone wearing a shirt supporting a sports rival just prior to a big game against them would probably invoke a violent response. You have no proof whatsoever the teacher is inciting violence or even(that I've seen) that the threat of violence has been confirmed and isn't a creation of the girl and her parents. I also haven't excused what the teacher did. I believe in my first post on the subject I made it clear I felt she reacted in a manner that deserves disciplinary action. It is just my opinion that many of these instances we frequently see these days are, in at least some part, instigated by parents looking for publicity for their cause or financial gain through later legal action. I don't think it is at all "off the wall" to think someone might plan and execute such a scheme in a society where people jump in front of cars so they can sue the driver. I just find it typical of the right that so many of you sympathized completely with the Texas assistant principal who paddled a female student to the point of bruising and in direct violation of current school policy yet act like this incident is the greatest abuse of power ever. BTW, what was the Texas girl's offense again? Oh yeah, she mouthed off to the administrator. Funny how you didn't see that as free speech.

You just can't admit that a fellow Obamabot did something very wrong here and should be fired for it. School uniforms have nothing to do with this incident, again PAY ATTENTION - this was a free dress day. My grandchildren wear uniforms to school, but there are free dress days. And I haven't commented on any other case, so that's yet another failed dodge on your part.
 
I have, and they don't. Even if they did, it's not your place to make the assumption.



Good God, the assumptions never stop. :roll:



Didn't claim it did. You, however, claim your experience does.



No, it's part of my observation of YOU.



And I've done this, where? Gosh, generalize some more; you have a knack for it.

I know many liberals who aren't hacks. You, however, are not one. Thank you for proving it nearly line-by-line.



You said she was "parroting her parent's views" with no qualification, and you defended it when called on it, so yes, in fact, you have.

If you want to backpedal from it now, as of course you SHOULD, so noted.



That doesn't mean they are either insincere OR programmed by her parents.



Apparently you think YOU did, when you said it was only natural that they would because she wore the shirt. Backpedaling from that now, too?

You know, if I could figure out how to make multi quote work on this site I would probably reply to your latest tirade in detail. I can't because of what I believe may be a browser issue but it can be easily summarized anyway. Any assumption you make is correct while those of anyone opposing you aren't. Your anecdotal experiences are indicative of the majority, any contradictory ones of others are an aberration. The girl's story, which is the only one we have heard so far other than the school acknowledging an incident, is to be believed in it's entirety and word for word while anyone questioning any aspect of it or her motives is clearly excusing the teacher's actions. While this girl is a free and independent thinker who forms her own opinions on matters(even when she has no experience to base them on), the remaining students in the school are mindless thugs who could not decide to disapprove of her actions without someone(presumably the teacher) pulling their puppet strings. Have we covered it all?
 
Any assumption you make is correct while those of anyone opposing you aren't.

I didn't make any. What I've said about you is based on observing your posts.

Your anecdotal experiences are indicative of the majority, any contradictory ones of others are an aberration.

For the second time, I never said that. YOU did. I didn't. I offered my anecdote -- and said specifically it WAS an anecdote precisely to make the point that it isn't reliable evidence -- to counter your own. And then I said you can't draw a conclusion from yourself.

You're just making things up, even after being corrected. This makes you dishonest.

The girl's story, which is the only one we have heard so far other than the school acknowledging an incident, is to be believed in it's entirety and word for word

See, now you're just whining while you're making things up out of whole cloth. I never said anything remotely similar to this.

while anyone questioning any aspect of it or her motives is clearly excusing the teacher's actions

Nor did I say anything remotely similar to that.

While this girl is a free and independent thinker who forms her own opinions on matters(even when she has no experience to base them on)

Nor this; I said you were making a partisan-motivated assumption that she isn't, not that she affirmatively is. Too subtle for you? It appears so.

Oh, and you're making another assumption; you don't actually KNOW what her "experience" is. Neither do I, but I don't assume negative things about her.

the remaining students in the school are mindless thugs who could not decide to disapprove of her actions without someone(presumably the teacher) pulling their puppet strings.

What a chirping bird. It's YOU who said it was natural reaction to want to beat her up, not I.

Have we covered it all?

I don't know; got anything else you'd like to make up out of whole cloth? Umad, bro? Usureseemmad. You may want to look into what it means to "protest too much," because you put it into overdrive here.

Maybe you should step away from the keyboard and cool off for a while.
 
You just can't admit that a fellow Obamabot did something very wrong here and should be fired for it. School uniforms have nothing to do with this incident, again PAY ATTENTION - this was a free dress day. My grandchildren wear uniforms to school, but there are free dress days. And I haven't commented on any other case, so that's yet another failed dodge on your part.

I admitted the teacher was in the wrong in my first post. I guess you ADD prevents you from paging back that far so here is the quote "Even so, I believe the teacher should be disciplined as her actions were incorrect and unwarranted." What is obvious is that YOU would not be defending this girl as the pillar of virtue, based only on her side of events, if the tables were reversed. As I mentioned, I didn't see you screaming free speech when a student was physically assaulted by an administrator for voicing her opinion and the most obvious conclusion is because it didn't have anything to do with your political agenda. You also still cannot seem to grasp that I have never claimed she violated any dress code. I have said I believe a dress code prohibiting any political message would be a good idea. If you don't have any such restriction you are opening a door not easily closed. Why wouldn't you consider a "KKK Pride" sweatshirt to be a political expression of free speech? Would it be because it isn't as popular as support for Romney and is that your criteria for protected speech?
 
I didn't make any. What I've said about you is based on observing your posts.



For the second time, I never said that. YOU did. I didn't. I offered my anecdote -- and said specifically it WAS an anecdote precisely to make the point that it isn't reliable evidence -- to counter your own. And then I said you can't draw a conclusion from yourself.

You're just making things up, even after being corrected. This makes you dishonest.



See, now you're just whining while you're making things up out of whole cloth. I never said anything remotely similar to this.



Nor did I say anything remotely similar to that.



Nor this; I said you were making a partisan-motivated assumption that she isn't, not that she affirmatively is. Too subtle for you? It appears so.

Oh, and you're making another assumption; you don't actually KNOW what her "experience" is. Neither do I, but I don't assume negative things about her.



What a chirping bird. It's YOU who said it was natural reaction to want to beat her up, not I.



I don't know; got anything else you'd like to make up out of whole cloth? Umad, bro? Usureseemmad. You may want to look into what it means to "protest too much," because you put it into overdrive here.

Maybe you should step away from the keyboard and cool off for a while.

Looks like at least one of my basic premises is validated by research. As I said, it isn't a certainty but the odds are definitely in my favor. If you can make it down to the chart, please note that the greatest sharing of political outlook between parents and children is among conservatives.


http://ase.tufts.edu/polsci/faculty/portney/studentSeiden.pdf
 
Looks like at least one of my basic premises is validated by research. As I said, it isn't a certainty but the odds are definitely in my favor. If you can make it down to the chart, please note that the greatest sharing of political outlook between parents and children is among conservatives.


http://ase.tufts.edu/polsci/faculty/portney/studentSeiden.pdf

Yet you still assumed based on partisan hackery and your own anecdotal evidence.

And the rest, you just made up out of whole cloth. Doesn't exactly secure you the benefit of any doubt, now, does it?
 
Yet you still assumed based on partisan hackery and your own anecdotal evidence.

And the rest, you just made up out of whole cloth. Doesn't exactly secure you the benefit of any doubt, now, does it?

No, I based it on common sense and having some idea of what I was talking about. I'm sure both concepts are foreign to you.
 
Regardless of what political party was on the T-shirt, left or right, the teacher should be fired. Even if it was a joke. Fire her. That is unacceptable.
 
I admitted the teacher was in the wrong in my first post. I guess you ADD prevents you from paging back that far so here is the quote "Even so, I believe the teacher should be disciplined as her actions were incorrect and unwarranted." What is obvious is that YOU would not be defending this girl as the pillar of virtue, based only on her side of events, if the tables were reversed. As I mentioned, I didn't see you screaming free speech when a student was physically assaulted by an administrator for voicing her opinion and the most obvious conclusion is because it didn't have anything to do with your political agenda. You also still cannot seem to grasp that I have never claimed she violated any dress code. I have said I believe a dress code prohibiting any political message would be a good idea. If you don't have any such restriction you are opening a door not easily closed. Why wouldn't you consider a "KKK Pride" sweatshirt to be a political expression of free speech? Would it be because it isn't as popular as support for Romney and is that your criteria for protected speech?

Huh, trying to cover you partisan screeds by suggesting I have ADD now? Yes, you hit on the truth in your first post, and then buried it with excuse after excuse for your fellow Obamadroid. The rest, well more strawman from you. Did I even comment on the thread/issue you're using as a distraction? Maybe a link to the thread itself. I don't recall even seeing it here.

Keep digging, the hole you've created for yourself is just getting larger.
 
Huh, trying to cover you partisan screeds by suggesting I have ADD now? Yes, you hit on the truth in your first post, and then buried it with excuse after excuse for your fellow Obamadroid. The rest, well more strawman from you. Did I even comment on the thread/issue you're using as a distraction? Maybe a link to the thread itself. I don't recall even seeing it here.

Keep digging, the hole you've created for yourself is just getting larger.

There's only one hole here and for some reason I keep responding to him. The thread was a whopping ten days ago. Looks like my ADD comment was spot on. I'm sure if it had been titled "Romney supporter paddled by assistant principle" you would have been all over it. Never have I reversed myself on stating the teacher was out of line in what she did. I just don't think it merits quite the witch hunt you conservatives want, particularly since we only have one side of the story and the school has just begun its investigation. I know you righties are ready to crown this girl Miss Wingnut 2012 but it is still possible this entire incident was planned by her parents to make some cash. It's enlightening of the right's double standard that so many of you immediately jumped to the conclusion that the multiple women who accused Herman Cain of sexual misconduct were all gold diggers but refuse to even accept the possibility of such a motive here.
 
the teacher should be disciplined.

I don't care what spin you want to put on it.. I don't care what kind of conspiracy you want to attribute to the student.
the student did absolutely nothing wrong... and was mocked and ridiculed by her teacher for it.

I don't understand why some folks in here are trying to lay blame on he student...
well, that's not true, I do understand, i just find it sad that partisanship gets in the way of doing/saying the right thing.

well done, because of your support for Obama, you have just condoned the bullying of a student by here teacher... well done indeed.:roll:
 
I call BS. This was no joke. The teacher is trying to cover her arse.


As a Chaosian, I believe the teacher has every right to ridicule a student for any reason whatsoever...

... and the student has the right to challenge the teacher to a duel to restore his honor that was impugned by her insults.



Wogdon_Duelling_pistols_1.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom