Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SECRET SERVICE INTERROGATES TWO OAKLAND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
WELCOME TO THE TERROR DOME...
On April 23, 2003, Secret Service agents visited Oakland High and interrogated two 16 year-old male students in connection with comments they had allegedly made during a classroom discussion concerning President Bush and the U.S. Government's role in Iraq.... When one of the students asked if he had to talk to the agents now, could he talk to them later with a lawyer present, the student said one of the agents told him, "We own you, if you don't talk to us now, and we find out you haven't told us everything, we'll put you MF's in federal prison. This is the beginning of the end for you."
*************************************************
The following was passed nearly unanimously at
the Oakland Education Association's Representative
Council on Monday, May 5, 2003 denouncing the
Interrogation of Oakland High Students by the Secret Service.
The East Bay Educators Justice Network will be
addressing and organizing around this issue at
our meeting next Tuesday, May 13, at 4PM at Oakland
Tech, Room 205 (45th and Broadway, enter through the back doors).
On April 23, 2003, Secret Service agents visited
Oakland High and interrogated two 16 year-old
male students in connection with comments they had
allegedly made during a classroom discussion
concerning President Bush and the U.S.
Government's role in Iraq.
The Secret Service was called the day before
because the teacher felt the students' statements could be interpreted as threats to the President. The
students were each subjected to intimidating
interrogation for 45 minutes to an hour each and were told they had no rights because of what they had supposedly said.
When one of the students asked if he had to talk to
the agents now, could he talk to them later with a
lawyer present, the student said one of the agents told
him, "We own you, if you don't talk to us now, and we
find out you haven't told us everything, we'll put you
MF's in federal prison. This is the beginning of the
end for you." The students were asked all kinds of
questions about their home life as well as things
like, "Are you a terrorist?" And their families--Mien
& Vietnamese--were threatened with deportation if
the students didn't cooperate. All of this was in the
presence of the principal, who made no attempt to
contact parents or advise students of their right
to remain silent or seek legal counsel.
We deplore this blatant infrigement of students'
free speech & academic freedom .
Students have a right to discuss their opinions
on any subject without the fear of reprisal or threats
of arrest from law enforcement. We will not allow
the atmosphere of repression against dissent and
immigrants to pervade our schools and community.
The city of Oakland, along with 92 other cities
in the country, has passed a resolution against the
Patriot Act. Be it resolved that in the spirit of that
resolution and in opposition to the atmosphere of
repression against dissent, we call for any file
related to this event to be stricken from
students' records. We further call on the OEA to support these students in the spirit of academic freedom and upholding their human and civil rights.
And we call on the school district to honor the rights of
students at all times, including the right to remain silent, to have parental representation, and to have legal counsel.
Larry Felson & Cassie Lopez,
OEA reps, Oakland High
*************************************************
The following was passed nearly unanimously at
the Oakland Education Association's Representative
Council on Monday, May 5, 2003 denouncing the
Interrogation of Oakland High Students by the Secret Service.
The East Bay Educators Justice Network will be
addressing and organizing around this issue at
our meeting next Tuesday, May 13, at 4PM at Oakland
Tech, Room 205 (45th and Broadway, enter through the back doors).
On April 23, 2003, Secret Service agents visited
Oakland High and interrogated two 16 year-old
male students in connection with comments they had
allegedly made during a classroom discussion
concerning President Bush and the U.S.
Government's role in Iraq.
The Secret Service was called the day before
because the teacher felt the students' statements could be interpreted as threats to the President. The
students were each subjected to intimidating
interrogation for 45 minutes to an hour each and were told they had no rights because of what they had supposedly said.
When one of the students asked if he had to talk to
the agents now, could he talk to them later with a
lawyer present, the student said one of the agents told
him, "We own you, if you don't talk to us now, and we
find out you haven't told us everything, we'll put you
MF's in federal prison. This is the beginning of the
end for you." The students were asked all kinds of
questions about their home life as well as things
like, "Are you a terrorist?" And their families--Mien
& Vietnamese--were threatened with deportation if
the students didn't cooperate. All of this was in the
presence of the principal, who made no attempt to
contact parents or advise students of their right
to remain silent or seek legal counsel.
We deplore this blatant infrigement of students'
free speech & academic freedom .
Students have a right to discuss their opinions
on any subject without the fear of reprisal or threats
of arrest from law enforcement. We will not allow
the atmosphere of repression against dissent and
immigrants to pervade our schools and community.
The city of Oakland, along with 92 other cities
in the country, has passed a resolution against the
Patriot Act. Be it resolved that in the spirit of that
resolution and in opposition to the atmosphere of
repression against dissent, we call for any file
related to this event to be stricken from
students' records. We further call on the OEA to support these students in the spirit of academic freedom and upholding their human and civil rights.
And we call on the school district to honor the rights of
students at all times, including the right to remain silent, to have parental representation, and to have legal counsel.
Larry Felson & Cassie Lopez,
OEA reps, Oakland High
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I think we just need to call a spade a spade and state outright that the USA has been taken over by the Nazis. This kind of intimidation and violation of basic civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is totally unacceptable in a free society. The teacher who called the SS should be ashamed of herself.
Sux,
Actually the Bill of RIghts "protects" our right to free speech not guarantees it. You should read the Bill sometime, you'll be suprised by what is protected and what is not protected.
Actually the Bill of RIghts "protects" our right to free speech not guarantees it. You should read the Bill sometime, you'll be suprised by what is protected and what is not protected.
For more information:
http://www.hootinan.com
I'm not quite sure what Tom is talking about...
Anyway, the Court has always said that not every form of speech is protected. Justice Holmes famously said that the 1st Amendment does not protect someone who yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Certainly, people are not protected for advocating harming a public official. If that's what the students did, then their speech is not protected.
Anyway, the Court has always said that not every form of speech is protected. Justice Holmes famously said that the 1st Amendment does not protect someone who yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Certainly, people are not protected for advocating harming a public official. If that's what the students did, then their speech is not protected.
What a pointless semantic nitpick there, tom. Judging from your blog, I'd say you'd be better off paying attention to developing coherent arguments (hint: they start with coherent thoughts) than dithering over meaningless minutiae. On the other hand, mindlessness seems to be what drives your prose, so maybe someday you can find a well-paying job as a corporate shill.
Props to the Oakland students, who are using their minds and asking questions rather than making an online spectacle of their hateful ignorance.
Props to the Oakland students, who are using their minds and asking questions rather than making an online spectacle of their hateful ignorance.
I love you, Dave.
I'm trying to educate the liberals. Many of them misunderstand the constitution. A lot of them even claim that you are taking away their liberties. This bothers me, but they cannot tell me exactly what liberties are being taken away.
Do you know what they are talking about? (between me and you, I'm not even sure they do.)
Do you know what they are talking about? (between me and you, I'm not even sure they do.)
We both seem to have our heads up our asses.
You sure do make a lot of accusations about the attorney general. Now you are saying he's some kind of contortionist. Egads! I am learning a lot (no wonder you want to force kids into public schools)
Explain that contortion thing, right after you explain to me what rights he's taken away from you.
Explain that contortion thing, right after you explain to me what rights he's taken away from you.
After this is abridged or worse ........
----- #1 -----
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
........
The slope into the darkness of the Bushes becomes so dark after that, that what used to be America, no longer is, and the number of Goones and Thugs in with the Bushes means little more the number in the title.
----- #1 -----
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
........
The slope into the darkness of the Bushes becomes so dark after that, that what used to be America, no longer is, and the number of Goones and Thugs in with the Bushes means little more the number in the title.
Explain to me how you became such an oblivious imbecile.
Conservatives always say that yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is not protected speech. They then conclude that threatening the president in a private conversation is not protected speech. They never explain how the two situations are analogous (because they are not analogous, of course). They are really, really, dumb. Either that or they lie a lot.
... but let's teach them an alternative to the negativity!
Taking the Bushes "out" isn't going to solve anything. WHAT exactly will replace them? The likes of Al Gore, whose wife bulldozed the U.S. Senate into harrassing rap and rock acts for expressing the exact same kind of free expression the Oakland students were?
No, kids, let's come up with some alternatives. Let's do some THINKING. I know the school system didn't teach you how to do it, and TV tries to PREVENT you from doing it, but there adults around who can at least try to show you how it's done. Jello Biafra's a good one. Janeane Garofalo's another one. Chuck D's fantastic. So's Michael Moore, of course, and I'm partial to Harry Browne, and Nader's pretty good too, and there's Greg Palast and Rev. Jackson, and even Gore Vidal. Or you can try to learn for yourselves, and perhaps do better than your parents did. Start by turning off the TV, and READING some books, some magazines, some web sites.
WHAT specifically would we replace the Bushes with? WHO do the Bushes work for? SOMEONE must be keeping them in power, and it sure as hell isn't us! Or is it? HOW can we join together and make even some dent in the huge Corporate Power Base in this country, in this world? WHAT elections can we affect? HOW can we get people out to vote? WHERE can we go to get the message out to those who simply don't know any more than they see on FOX TV?
We won't shake off violence by threatening to kill people, no matter how obnoxious or evil they are. You can't stop violence with more violence. We've already learned that in the Middle East.
That's the kind of free speech that will help keep ALL of our speech free, forever. Please join in the discussion, kids, I'll bet you'll come up with powerfully creative ideas that us old folks simply wouldn't.
Taking the Bushes "out" isn't going to solve anything. WHAT exactly will replace them? The likes of Al Gore, whose wife bulldozed the U.S. Senate into harrassing rap and rock acts for expressing the exact same kind of free expression the Oakland students were?
No, kids, let's come up with some alternatives. Let's do some THINKING. I know the school system didn't teach you how to do it, and TV tries to PREVENT you from doing it, but there adults around who can at least try to show you how it's done. Jello Biafra's a good one. Janeane Garofalo's another one. Chuck D's fantastic. So's Michael Moore, of course, and I'm partial to Harry Browne, and Nader's pretty good too, and there's Greg Palast and Rev. Jackson, and even Gore Vidal. Or you can try to learn for yourselves, and perhaps do better than your parents did. Start by turning off the TV, and READING some books, some magazines, some web sites.
WHAT specifically would we replace the Bushes with? WHO do the Bushes work for? SOMEONE must be keeping them in power, and it sure as hell isn't us! Or is it? HOW can we join together and make even some dent in the huge Corporate Power Base in this country, in this world? WHAT elections can we affect? HOW can we get people out to vote? WHERE can we go to get the message out to those who simply don't know any more than they see on FOX TV?
We won't shake off violence by threatening to kill people, no matter how obnoxious or evil they are. You can't stop violence with more violence. We've already learned that in the Middle East.
That's the kind of free speech that will help keep ALL of our speech free, forever. Please join in the discussion, kids, I'll bet you'll come up with powerfully creative ideas that us old folks simply wouldn't.
I'm not a very smart man, but I am smart enough to recognize questions like "have you stopped beating your wife?"
You socialists are so silly! I like how you dress up like generalisimos and grow weird mustaches and such. I love you guys - you whacky anarchists, you.
Let me help draw a question out of you...to what am I oblivious?
You socialists are so silly! I like how you dress up like generalisimos and grow weird mustaches and such. I love you guys - you whacky anarchists, you.
Let me help draw a question out of you...to what am I oblivious?
Yelling fire and threatening an official are DANGEROUS that's why they're not protected. Prima facie, neither is inherently dangerous - it is the consequences of these words the Supreme Court seeks to prevent.
Now - whether or not you agree with the U.S. president, you must agree that conspiracies against him could result in the deaths of millions.
You're too dumb to go around calling yourself Socrates, so quit it.
Now - whether or not you agree with the U.S. president, you must agree that conspiracies against him could result in the deaths of millions.
You're too dumb to go around calling yourself Socrates, so quit it.
Well, I don't know nothin' 'bout any damned 'Bill 'o Rights', but what I does know is this: If them stoopid kids had done been sayin' anyhting bad about our President givin from God almighty or our blessed nation, them should be shot.
That's the way all those stoopid people with opinions that differ from our god-givin President should done be delt with. When peole have free minds the nation's security is at stake. The stoopid minorities might take hold.
So I'll end by sayin' that if someone speaks out against our blessed country or god-givin President, they should be killed along with all the people who don't believe in Christ almighty.
-John
That's the way all those stoopid people with opinions that differ from our god-givin President should done be delt with. When peole have free minds the nation's security is at stake. The stoopid minorities might take hold.
So I'll end by sayin' that if someone speaks out against our blessed country or god-givin President, they should be killed along with all the people who don't believe in Christ almighty.
-John
Well, I don't know nothin' 'bout any damned 'Bill 'o Rights', but what I does know is this: If them stoopid kids had done been sayin' anyhting bad about our President givin from God almighty or our blessed nation, them should be shot.
That's the way all those stoopid people with opinions that differ from our god-givin President should done be delt with. When peole have free minds the nation's security is at stake. The stoopid minorities might take hold.
So I'll end by sayin' that if someone speaks out against our blessed country or god-givin President, they should be killed along with all the people who don't believe in Christ almighty.
-John
That's the way all those stoopid people with opinions that differ from our god-givin President should done be delt with. When peole have free minds the nation's security is at stake. The stoopid minorities might take hold.
So I'll end by sayin' that if someone speaks out against our blessed country or god-givin President, they should be killed along with all the people who don't believe in Christ almighty.
-John
"You socialists are so silly! I like how you dress up like generalisimos and grow weird mustaches and such."
Oh, you mean like HITLER?
"I'm not a very smart man,..."
THAT'S for sure!
Oh, you mean like HITLER?
"I'm not a very smart man,..."
THAT'S for sure!
Well, I don't know nothin' 'bout any damned 'Bill 'o Rights', but what I does know is this: If them stoopid kids had done been sayin' anyhting bad about our President givin from God almighty or our blessed nation, them should be shot.
That's the way all those stoopid people with opinions that differ from our god-givin President should done be delt with. When peole have free minds the nation's security is at stake. The stoopid minorities might take hold.
So I'll end by sayin' that if someone speaks out against our blessed country or god-givin President, they should be killed along with all the people who don't believe in Christ almighty.
-John
That's the way all those stoopid people with opinions that differ from our god-givin President should done be delt with. When peole have free minds the nation's security is at stake. The stoopid minorities might take hold.
So I'll end by sayin' that if someone speaks out against our blessed country or god-givin President, they should be killed along with all the people who don't believe in Christ almighty.
-John
Answering a question with a question! What a surprise!
For more information:
http://www.hootinan.com
Well two key aspects of human civilization for the last 5000 years or so are social hierarchy and some kind of mythology to protect that hierarchy. The internet does change the playing field a bit, since information becomes more difficult to control and myths become more difficult to maintain. But it's not entirely obvious how the tragic circumstance of humanity can be corrected and humanity freed of oppression. But we can always start with the more limited goal of trying to improve the present state of affairs.
Who exactly are you addressing, you ignoramus?
"Yelling fire and threatening an official are DANGEROUS that's why they're not protected. Prima facie, neither is inherently dangerous - it is the consequences of these words the Supreme Court seeks to prevent."
If someone yells 'fire' in a crowded theater then people might run around in a panic and hurt themselves. If you overhear someone talking about wanting to hurt the president then....what exactly? For example, did the kids all try to run out of the classroom in a panic?? Where is the 'present' danger?? It's not there -- that's why your arguments make no sense. Take it from Socrates, anyone who supports this kind of nonsense is a fascist.
P.S. there isn't even a 'clear' danger, since there's a good chance that it's just a couple of kids letting off some steam.
If someone yells 'fire' in a crowded theater then people might run around in a panic and hurt themselves. If you overhear someone talking about wanting to hurt the president then....what exactly? For example, did the kids all try to run out of the classroom in a panic?? Where is the 'present' danger?? It's not there -- that's why your arguments make no sense. Take it from Socrates, anyone who supports this kind of nonsense is a fascist.
P.S. there isn't even a 'clear' danger, since there's a good chance that it's just a couple of kids letting off some steam.
Step one: Teacher calls the Secret Service. Says that she is convince that students in her class are plotting to attempt to kill/maim/harm the President.
Step Two: Since it is coming from the students teacher, they decide to do their job...prevent attempts on the Presidents life.
Step Three: The Secret Service interviews the students with the Pricipal present.
Step Four: Having ascertained that there is no threat present, the Secret Service releases the Students and goes about their business.
Bush has:
A 1 in 10 chance of being assassinated.
A 1 in 3 chance of being injured in an assassination attempt.
A 100% chance of having someone plan and attempt to carry out a plan to assassinate him.
The economical, political, cultural, and potential security fallout of an assassination of the President is enormous. We ended up staying in Vietnam for a few more years due to an assassinated president.
Those who protect the President of the United States are given a little more leeway within the constraints of the law PROVIDED that they are working ONLY in the interests of his protection.
If those kids were tortured or brutalized in in form or fashion and have the Principal as a witness, I'd say toss their butts in jail. But outside of that, I'm glad they did what they did.
By the way...it is a crime to threaten to murder someone. Just because you know you are joking does not mean that the person you are talking to knows you are joking.
Step Two: Since it is coming from the students teacher, they decide to do their job...prevent attempts on the Presidents life.
Step Three: The Secret Service interviews the students with the Pricipal present.
Step Four: Having ascertained that there is no threat present, the Secret Service releases the Students and goes about their business.
Bush has:
A 1 in 10 chance of being assassinated.
A 1 in 3 chance of being injured in an assassination attempt.
A 100% chance of having someone plan and attempt to carry out a plan to assassinate him.
The economical, political, cultural, and potential security fallout of an assassination of the President is enormous. We ended up staying in Vietnam for a few more years due to an assassinated president.
Those who protect the President of the United States are given a little more leeway within the constraints of the law PROVIDED that they are working ONLY in the interests of his protection.
If those kids were tortured or brutalized in in form or fashion and have the Principal as a witness, I'd say toss their butts in jail. But outside of that, I'm glad they did what they did.
By the way...it is a crime to threaten to murder someone. Just because you know you are joking does not mean that the person you are talking to knows you are joking.
Mot,
Alright alright, it appears that you would rather call names that be civil, so I will bring the discussion back to what this thread was originally about. I will go back on what I said previously, the Bill of Rights does not just protect our right to free speech, it guarantees it. But along with free speech comes an added responsibility. A responsibility to not say stupid things at inappropriate times. Now what exactly did these kids from Oakland say? I don't know. If they said something inappropriate, the SS had a right to sit them down and say "hey, what the hell is going on". If it was nothing, which it probably was, then the SS should stay the hell away from these kids and concentrate on real threats. Agreed?
Alright alright, it appears that you would rather call names that be civil, so I will bring the discussion back to what this thread was originally about. I will go back on what I said previously, the Bill of Rights does not just protect our right to free speech, it guarantees it. But along with free speech comes an added responsibility. A responsibility to not say stupid things at inappropriate times. Now what exactly did these kids from Oakland say? I don't know. If they said something inappropriate, the SS had a right to sit them down and say "hey, what the hell is going on". If it was nothing, which it probably was, then the SS should stay the hell away from these kids and concentrate on real threats. Agreed?
For more information:
http://www.hootinan.com
"Mot, Alright alright, it appears that you would rather call names that be civil..."
Here's Tom's thoughts on Madonna's trip to France:
"Then stay there you useful idiot."
Source: http://www.hootinan.com
You are a typical conservative, tom. Do as I say, not as I do.
Here's Tom's thoughts on Madonna's trip to France:
"Then stay there you useful idiot."
Source: http://www.hootinan.com
You are a typical conservative, tom. Do as I say, not as I do.
Right, but theres a difference here. Madonna said something stupid and I called her a useful idiot. I on the other-hand, by accident, forgot to include who I was directing my comment to, thereby receiving an insult from you. You called me an ignoramus. See what I'm getting at here. She said something stupid, on purpose. I, forgot to mention something, by accident. If Madonna praised the french for opposing the war, by accident, I would have never called her a useful idiot.
For more information:
http://www.hootinan.com
"Madonna said something stupid..."
That's merely your opinion.
That's merely your opinion.
All things are in the eye of the beholder, negativity is not negativity depending on the context of the situation, change the context and it may become negativity.
Same with violence, shooting someone because simply and without any other information the ‘team’ you are on says that’s the thing to do, is violence, but shooting someone who has just shot two of your three children and is still firing at you, your wife and child is not violence, even though that act of shooting them is a violent one, this is true for most societies on this planet.
While we are on the subject of relational relativism here, I wonder if most people understand what money may equal, in terms of life, quality of life, and or death with out it, such as if you steal, or take away lets say One Billion Dollars from California or the United States as a whole, well the bigger or smaller the group will just have a less or more, impact, but you get the idea, so lets say, the full, United States, yes the United States throws away One Billion Dollars lets say, just for discussion of coarse, well how many lives do you think that would be equivalent to as in they die because there is not enough funding for this or that, one?/two?/7?/100?/1000?, my guess is about 500, maybe I am high or low, I am not sure, but think about it, throw away 100 Billon Dollars on an unneeded war and that would be like killing 50,000 people from your own country.
So when you look at it, in the cost of, ‘money/peoples lives’, it may look different now, yes, money taken away from health care, food programs, education, life support programs, school arts programs, what ever, it does have real effects, many do not like to put it in these freighting terms though, because it may make it difficult for them to get the funding for their war stuff, like killing people to make them free or landing in a jet on an aircraft carrier for the fun of it no matter the effect it has on our society, especially for those that are in the big bucks and do not have to worry about medical or what ever services from the government.
So if you hear that Bush is ready to give Turkey 10 - 30 Billion Dollars for the rights to fly over their land, remember that is like trading so many lives, human beings, adults, seniors, children what ever, it is the same as saying we need some human offerings to satisfy the gods of the big volcano so that it will not blow up and get us all. This big volcano is big shot rich people that need to bleed the world for more money through the sales they make in the war game, but that’s another story.
* You know this is true *
Same with violence, shooting someone because simply and without any other information the ‘team’ you are on says that’s the thing to do, is violence, but shooting someone who has just shot two of your three children and is still firing at you, your wife and child is not violence, even though that act of shooting them is a violent one, this is true for most societies on this planet.
While we are on the subject of relational relativism here, I wonder if most people understand what money may equal, in terms of life, quality of life, and or death with out it, such as if you steal, or take away lets say One Billion Dollars from California or the United States as a whole, well the bigger or smaller the group will just have a less or more, impact, but you get the idea, so lets say, the full, United States, yes the United States throws away One Billion Dollars lets say, just for discussion of coarse, well how many lives do you think that would be equivalent to as in they die because there is not enough funding for this or that, one?/two?/7?/100?/1000?, my guess is about 500, maybe I am high or low, I am not sure, but think about it, throw away 100 Billon Dollars on an unneeded war and that would be like killing 50,000 people from your own country.
So when you look at it, in the cost of, ‘money/peoples lives’, it may look different now, yes, money taken away from health care, food programs, education, life support programs, school arts programs, what ever, it does have real effects, many do not like to put it in these freighting terms though, because it may make it difficult for them to get the funding for their war stuff, like killing people to make them free or landing in a jet on an aircraft carrier for the fun of it no matter the effect it has on our society, especially for those that are in the big bucks and do not have to worry about medical or what ever services from the government.
So if you hear that Bush is ready to give Turkey 10 - 30 Billion Dollars for the rights to fly over their land, remember that is like trading so many lives, human beings, adults, seniors, children what ever, it is the same as saying we need some human offerings to satisfy the gods of the big volcano so that it will not blow up and get us all. This big volcano is big shot rich people that need to bleed the world for more money through the sales they make in the war game, but that’s another story.
* You know this is true *
So then, by that logic you're a hypocrite as well. I called someone stupid because, in my opinion, what they (madonna) said was stupid, and you called me stupid (an ignoramus) because you thought something I said was stupid (although it was a lack of something I said). You called me a hypocrite, when you were doing the exact same thing...sound a bit hypocritical.
For more information:
http://www.hootinan.com
I called you an ignoramus not because of something you SAID. I called you an ignoramus because you ARE one. It's really that simple, tom. I thought that YOU of all people would be able to understand that.
Somehow I knew you would resort to name calling again. Thank you for proving yourself unfit for debate.
For more information:
http://www.hootinan.com
"Thank you for proving yourself unfit for debate."
One only needs to visit your website to see who is "unfit for debate." What a JOKE you are!
One only needs to visit your website to see who is "unfit for debate." What a JOKE you are!
If I'm such a "JOKE", why do you resort to name-calling, instead of debating?
For more information:
http://www.hootinan.com
"That old disgusting bag, Margaret Drabble of the Telegraph has proved to me without a shadow of a doubt, that the left really does have an incurable disease."
No, YOU'RE not one to name-call, ARE you? You AND your website are total jokes. I don't debate with jokes.
No, YOU'RE not one to name-call, ARE you? You AND your website are total jokes. I don't debate with jokes.
Way to troll my site. Do you have a site? Or even a real name...Mot? Why hide behind a silly moniker-spoof of my name? And please define "JOKE". Is it referring to someone in a derogatory manner? Is it the inability to debate? Is it a differing of opinion? Or is it having a website that doesn't share your point of view?
Well, if it's any or all of them, you're a "JOKE" as well. If it's referring to someone in a derogatory manner, then you're a "JOKE" for calling me an ignoramus. If it's the inability to debate, why do you keep changing the subject? If it's a differing of opinion, then you're a "JOKE" cause you don't agree with me. If my site is a joke, where is your site? And lastly, looking back at the past few responses you have proven yourself, beyond a reasonable doubt, unable to respond with anything well thought out (or even on the topic, clearly you would rather take pot shots at me, than take the time to respond with anything useful or intelligent). Once again thank you for proving that, in fact, you are the "JOKE".
If you wish to continue the debate, I'd love to continue talking about the Bill of Rights/Freedom of Speech. Any off topic response, will make you look like a "JOKE" and a fool.
Well, if it's any or all of them, you're a "JOKE" as well. If it's referring to someone in a derogatory manner, then you're a "JOKE" for calling me an ignoramus. If it's the inability to debate, why do you keep changing the subject? If it's a differing of opinion, then you're a "JOKE" cause you don't agree with me. If my site is a joke, where is your site? And lastly, looking back at the past few responses you have proven yourself, beyond a reasonable doubt, unable to respond with anything well thought out (or even on the topic, clearly you would rather take pot shots at me, than take the time to respond with anything useful or intelligent). Once again thank you for proving that, in fact, you are the "JOKE".
If you wish to continue the debate, I'd love to continue talking about the Bill of Rights/Freedom of Speech. Any off topic response, will make you look like a "JOKE" and a fool.
For more information:
http://www.hootinan.com
Have you ever had a dream in which you found your self on a planet like Earth and did not care where you lived or what you looked liked because you love all peoples the same?
lol
No, I did not think so, .......... ROTFLOL
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
lol
No, I did not think so, .......... ROTFLOL
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
To tom who has to stop perplexing and come up with some of his crap blatherings. (lol)
Hey, tom. tommy boy! Is it true that Yahoo has dropped there article on your site for reasons that your site is objectionable, (lol), the answer is, YES.
And thats what the link shows, as well as the information on PC - info sites of Yahoo
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Hey, tom. tommy boy! Is it true that Yahoo has dropped there article on your site for reasons that your site is objectionable, (lol), the answer is, YES.
And thats what the link shows, as well as the information on PC - info sites of Yahoo
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
TodayI was driving down the highway when suddenly I saw military trucks; large -khaky colored Military trucks (offensive to the site).
I brushed it off as nothing, and joked that they looked like they were ready to ship off dissenters to concentratio camps.
Yet when I looked around again there were military tanks with soldiers driving on the opposite of the road.
It was horrific
Is this what is awaiting us all
marshal law ?iS it already taking place underneath our noses while we keep turning a blind eye to it>>
I brushed it off as nothing, and joked that they looked like they were ready to ship off dissenters to concentratio camps.
Yet when I looked around again there were military tanks with soldiers driving on the opposite of the road.
It was horrific
Is this what is awaiting us all
marshal law ?iS it already taking place underneath our noses while we keep turning a blind eye to it>>
Sorry, I'm much too simpleminded to understand your posts. I'm but a conservative.
Conservatives are just too easy to screw with. Thanks for the laughs!
tom you can still try to be nice as long as you are alive, just try, ok? good luck! (tom)
Even though you are a mean conservative, not a trying to be a nice conservative in any true way, but an evil, hateful, greedy, dishonest, and a wierd very much not nice conservative, you still have the chance to be nice if you truely open your heart, eyes, and mind, its there if you can find it out of your darkness, good luck.
Even though you are a mean conservative, not a trying to be a nice conservative in any true way, but an evil, hateful, greedy, dishonest, and a wierd very much not nice conservative, you still have the chance to be nice if you truely open your heart, eyes, and mind, its there if you can find it out of your darkness, good luck.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12583&c=206
Go to the above link for a *thoughtful* explanation by the ACLU regarding the Bush administration's attacks on our civil liberties. I also suggest you do some reading regarding free speech and our constitution. I do not wish to engage in this childish debate, but I will suggest that you seem to think you know more than you do.
Go to the above link for a *thoughtful* explanation by the ACLU regarding the Bush administration's attacks on our civil liberties. I also suggest you do some reading regarding free speech and our constitution. I do not wish to engage in this childish debate, but I will suggest that you seem to think you know more than you do.
Hi, I'm tom. I own a blog website. I have to live in my mommy's basement so that I can afford to keep my joke of a website running. My life sucks. That's why I'm so angry. I apologize to you all.
Dont worry America will be to your country to help you out soon to
I live in America, you genius. You must be a KOBE member. Short on brains, long on stupidity.
Dave has no idea what he's talking about re the First Amendment. In order to lose constitutional protection because it creates a danger, speech must create a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action. Did the students' comments create a clear and present danger? Was the danger of lawless action, if any, imminent?
The chances that either of these requirements were met is are slim at best, and most liklely nonexistent. What the SS agents did to the students is no less than totalitarian, but the teacher is the one who is the real culprit here. That teacher certainly didn't grow up in my hometown of Chicago, where you learn at a young age to keep your mouth shut regarding the affairs of others if you don't want to end up at the bottom of Lake Michigan or the Chicago River in a pair of cement overshoes. Seriously, that teacher is a rat who would have made a great collaberator with the Nazis in Germany 65 years ago. Instead of asking the students to articulate their feelings and then leading a discussion -- as any good teacher would have done -- he or she ratted her students out to the pigs. This person would make a good prison guard but is a complete failure as a teacher.
The chances that either of these requirements were met is are slim at best, and most liklely nonexistent. What the SS agents did to the students is no less than totalitarian, but the teacher is the one who is the real culprit here. That teacher certainly didn't grow up in my hometown of Chicago, where you learn at a young age to keep your mouth shut regarding the affairs of others if you don't want to end up at the bottom of Lake Michigan or the Chicago River in a pair of cement overshoes. Seriously, that teacher is a rat who would have made a great collaberator with the Nazis in Germany 65 years ago. Instead of asking the students to articulate their feelings and then leading a discussion -- as any good teacher would have done -- he or she ratted her students out to the pigs. This person would make a good prison guard but is a complete failure as a teacher.
"We own you, if you don't talk to us now, and we find out you haven't told us everything, we'll put you MF's in federal prison. This is the beginning of the end for you."
Fuck the Secret Service and their intimidation interrogation tactics. They don't own shit. What they need is a real good revolutionary smack down to put them back in their place. What a bunch of punks. Think they can do whatever they want while flashing around their little ID badge. The more people this federal government pisses off, the more it's days are numbered.
Fuck the Secret Service and their intimidation interrogation tactics. They don't own shit. What they need is a real good revolutionary smack down to put them back in their place. What a bunch of punks. Think they can do whatever they want while flashing around their little ID badge. The more people this federal government pisses off, the more it's days are numbered.
For more information:
http://www.raisethefist.com
Badges? We don't have no stincken badges!
We just like to have our fun, we don't hurt nobody to much. We are good teachers, we teach kids how to read a menue, so that like they can order food in a good resturant like Mc Donnalds.
Say Cheeezzzzz
We just like to have our fun, we don't hurt nobody to much. We are good teachers, we teach kids how to read a menue, so that like they can order food in a good resturant like Mc Donnalds.
Say Cheeezzzzz
this is happaning all over the place in Tucson, Arizona at a south side school, two marines cornered a friend one of my friends and started giving him shit about the army coat and beret he was wearing. "You have no right wearing that, if you dont take it off I'll do something i'll fuckin regert" and to let the shit hit the fan two pigs and the school were watching as my friend was being threatened by these fucks. If these marines are truly trying to protect our right of freedom of speech, then why are they so eager to take them away... Fuck these opposers their days are numbered. Refuse and Resist!
Obviously you dont understand the military mindset, especially that of a Marine. To see someone wearing the uniform, or any part of a uniform presently prescribed to military members, is against the uniform regulations set forth by the department of defense. If these two students happened to be disgracing the uniform in anyway, that especially is a big no-no, especially to a Marine, who lives and breathes regulations. One must understand that a uniform is not just a collection of garments, but rather represents the fighting force of our country, and as a military member, is something to take pride in.
A fearless blodger and strong supporter of the Sharon brand of Zionism.
Tom DiLello
155 Sleepy Hollow Lane
Congers, NY 10920
US
Phone: 845-642-2395
Tom DiLello
155 Sleepy Hollow Lane
Congers, NY 10920
US
Phone: 845-642-2395
Wear a uniform to conform to a herd of humans. Whether you are a solider or anarchist, its only an item of clothing - nothnig to take pride in. Kind and selfless thoughts and deeds are things to take pride in. We are only one tribe.
> To see someone wearing the uniform, or any part of a uniform presently prescribed to military members, is against the uniform regulations set forth by the department of defense.
Those regulations do not apply to civilians.
Those regulations do not apply to civilians.
People need to know who the teacher was that did this to them and who the principal was that watched it happen. What are their names? People in the Bay Area need to be hounding them night and day, shaming them publicly.
You guys rant and rave over police tactics of intimidation, but you certainly don't mind
intimindating a poor working class teacher.
Fucking rich kids......
intimindating a poor working class teacher.
Fucking rich kids......
"You guys rant and rave over police tactics of intimidation, but you certainly don't mind
intimindating a poor working class teacher. "
Like you American fascists...er sorry...Patriots, give a rat's ass about Teachers or the Working Class in general. You clowns will cynically manipulate every issue (such as "concern" for teachers and the working class) to defend your American Police State at every time won't you?
Friggin' mainstream hypocrites...
intimindating a poor working class teacher. "
Like you American fascists...er sorry...Patriots, give a rat's ass about Teachers or the Working Class in general. You clowns will cynically manipulate every issue (such as "concern" for teachers and the working class) to defend your American Police State at every time won't you?
Friggin' mainstream hypocrites...
I haven't seen anything about this on the national news and I think it should be spread far and wide. It is important that as fast as these events occur they should be splashed all over the country. We need such incidents known in a very high profile way.
Is any organisation doing this? Would it be ok if I posted it places or do you want this handled locally?
Is any organisation doing this? Would it be ok if I posted it places or do you want this handled locally?
That teacher is a class traitor.
There will be an organizing meeting Tuesday in response to this incident (as part of a regular East Bay Educators Justice Network meeting). All are welcome.
Tuesday, May 13, 4PM, Oakland Tech HS, Room 205 (use the back door to get in). 45th and Broadway, near the Macarthur BART. E-mail jzern1 [at] yahoo.com for more info.
Tuesday, May 13, 4PM, Oakland Tech HS, Room 205 (use the back door to get in). 45th and Broadway, near the Macarthur BART. E-mail jzern1 [at] yahoo.com for more info.
For more information:
http://www.may8.org
The "clear and present danger" you mention is but one form of speech which does not garner 1st Amendment protection. Some forms of speech are just deemed beyond the pail by the high Court, such as obscenity and threats to the president.
As for you ACLU backers on this page - as soon as I see the ACLU start protecting my 2nd Amendment rights, I'll become a card carrying member.
Why do liberals pick and choose the parts of the Constitution they want to uphold?
As for you ACLU backers on this page - as soon as I see the ACLU start protecting my 2nd Amendment rights, I'll become a card carrying member.
Why do liberals pick and choose the parts of the Constitution they want to uphold?
Schoolboys who joke about offing the President (who is nothing more than an icon to them) are not wise, but neither do they represent any danger to the person who serves as President. Schoolboys who wear military costumes are possibly not wise, but neither do they represent any danger to the military or any of its representatives.
Sane people recognize this. That the SS men, and the Marines, were unable to recognize this speaks to their mental sanity--and lack thereof. Clearly, these men have been brainwashed, and are dangerous. They pose more of a danger to others, including civilians, schoolboys, and the President, than those whom they are intimidating.
Since it is unlikely that the Secret Service and the Marines will recognize that what they say and do represents a clear and present danger to others and to our attempts to establish a fully functioning democracy, it is up to the rest of us to speak up and become active. We cannot passively sit by and hope that the SS and the various arms of the US military become sane vehicles by which our safety will be delivered.
Sane people recognize this. That the SS men, and the Marines, were unable to recognize this speaks to their mental sanity--and lack thereof. Clearly, these men have been brainwashed, and are dangerous. They pose more of a danger to others, including civilians, schoolboys, and the President, than those whom they are intimidating.
Since it is unlikely that the Secret Service and the Marines will recognize that what they say and do represents a clear and present danger to others and to our attempts to establish a fully functioning democracy, it is up to the rest of us to speak up and become active. We cannot passively sit by and hope that the SS and the various arms of the US military become sane vehicles by which our safety will be delivered.
..in Kansas last year. He said something about not liking Bush and whatnot-the teacher told the Principle he 'stood up, raised his fist and said "I'm going to kill the President'" Long story short, he was interrogated for two hours while they determined if he was a 'threat to the president'
I found the discussion of this article very interesting because it all seemed to grow out of a discussion of something that was never really present in the first report--what the kids in question actually said.
A lot of the comments focused on whether there was any legal authority to question the students and whether they had a free speech right to threaten the president. Well, before you get there you really have to know exactly what they said. I love Indymedia but the flip side is that you don't often get the most objectively presented info. I mean, what more obvious fact to mention in a story about a threat being made than what was actually threatened? If it was not actually threatening, then it can really only help the kids' case right? Perhaps those of you who read this and post stories in the future can reflect on that.
What I found really disturbing was the abusive tactics reportedly used by the agents. Refusing students access to a lawyer is unreasonable, unnecessary and illegal. I saw some people mention things about the need to protect the presidency and stability of power/government etc. Someone suggested that the Vietnam war had continued because of an assasination, implying the grave consequences that might lie ahead if secret service agents aren't granted broad authority, etc...? Well, murder is wrong. That's why we have a law against it. So is government abuse of fundamental rights such as the right to counsel. The interesting thing about the arguments about giving flexibility to Secret Service is that they are essentially the same arguments that would permit, say, a delusional (and in this discussion entirely hypothetical) teenager from deciding the normal rules don't apply and that he needs to take out the President. It's all about rationalizing away what society has clearly mandated--life and security of right.
The Vietnam thing is a stretch, I believe. Anyone think Georgie's gonna turn out blocking SUVs coming off the Bay Bridge anytime soon? It's really easy to beat a reality with hypotheticals. And I think one of the dangers of that kind of thing is you start ignoring present injustice and constantly hope that the net gain in the end will be a whole lot of bad things averted. So, 16 year old kids get pushed around and denied basic constitutional rights in exchange for more security for our president (who probably has a whole army behind him.. oh wait... ) and people in Iraq get killed so we dont have to worry about chemical weapons that dont exist. I mean, why even pretend that these decisions are based on prudent planning and cost/benefit analysis after a while (at least on the terms they purport to be based on, not oil...)
Is it appropriate to end an article like this with a sigh?
1) Nobody knows exactly what the students said. They could have said something as innocuous as "Bush loves war." If that is the case, this whole scene is even more disgraceful. No matter what the students said, the SS agents had NO business saying things like "We own you, if you don't talk to us now, and we find out you haven't told us everything, we'll put you MF's in federal prison. This is the beginning of the end for you." Government agents intimidating people, especially students, is completely wrong. Another teacher at the school said something very powerful that we should all consider.
"I tell you the looks on those schildrens' faces. I don't know if they'll say any thing about anything again."
The Bush administration needs to stop using law enforcement to impose its "Leave It to Beaver" conservative tradtional viewpoint on American youth.
"I tell you the looks on those schildrens' faces. I don't know if they'll say any thing about anything again."
The Bush administration needs to stop using law enforcement to impose its "Leave It to Beaver" conservative tradtional viewpoint on American youth.
2nd Amendment? The 2nd Amendment is a holdover from the days when the US army consisted of citizens with guns at home, and people had to hunt for food. Things were different in the 1700s. Civilians don't need guns anymore. Get over it.
The 2nd Amendment is as important today as ever. How can the protestors who believe that the government is building a police state not desire to prevent this via an armed populace?
More practically, many many crimes each day are prevented by an armed citizen at the scene. Often, the only action necessary is a shot in the air or the display of the weapon. These stories rarely get published but they do happen frequently.
Lastly, many state constitutions specifically provide for an individuals right to bear arms in self-defense. I am familiar with these in Indiana, Arizona, and Oregon, and am guessing there are more.
How can you say with a straight face that one amendment is outdated while another deserves ardent protection? Couldn't you say that the clause in the 1st Amendment preventing the establishment of a state religion is outdated? It was merely designed to prevent an official federal church - which never occured (although many colonies had official churches at the time.)
More practically, many many crimes each day are prevented by an armed citizen at the scene. Often, the only action necessary is a shot in the air or the display of the weapon. These stories rarely get published but they do happen frequently.
Lastly, many state constitutions specifically provide for an individuals right to bear arms in self-defense. I am familiar with these in Indiana, Arizona, and Oregon, and am guessing there are more.
How can you say with a straight face that one amendment is outdated while another deserves ardent protection? Couldn't you say that the clause in the 1st Amendment preventing the establishment of a state religion is outdated? It was merely designed to prevent an official federal church - which never occured (although many colonies had official churches at the time.)
For more information:
http://www.daveswow.com/
A very powerful statement and article. Unlike some others, I do not think that all guns should be illegal, but it is obvious that America has a gun problem. It is far easier to get a gun in the US than in, say, Britain or Japan, and far less people are killed anually in both of those countries combined than in New York in a month. Both of those countries have weapons bans. There are far too many guns in America and they are far too deeply implanted in its culture for a gun ban to work here, but it goes to show that people usually won't need guns if potential criminals can't get them. Besides, an America where people hide in their homes, clutching their guns in fear is not the America I want to live in. Guns have some place in society, but they are far too prevalent in America.
So you are saying that two Oakland 16 year olds who dislike Bush are likely to have a plan to travel across the country and make an attempt on George W. Bush's life? Teenagers often say such things just to "vent steam" as a previous writer in this forum correctly stated. The agents asked the students ridiculous questions like "Are you a terrorist?" Right. So everybody who doesn't like Bush is now a suspected terrorist? I guess I must be a terrorist then.
And you have no idea what the students said. The teacher could have called and just said she heard suspicious remarks.
And you have no idea what the students said. The teacher could have called and just said she heard suspicious remarks.
This is why I am afraid that increased gun regulations would not work in the United States. Gun control, and even gun bans, work in Europe and Japan because they have been in effect for so long, it is nearly impossible for any civilian to get a gun. Also, when gun manufacture, and not just distribution, is targeted, the gun market becomes smaller. Criminals can't ignore gun control laws in these countries because they can't get their hands on a gun. The problem in America is that so many guns are already out there, it would be extremely difficult to track them down. Also, hunters would protest loudly, which is obviously not such a problem in Europe and Japan.
Mr. Nobody, You say gun control works in Japan and Britain. Now, Japan is a special case, with a homogeneous culture with historically (pre-gun) low rates of homicide.
In Britain, rates of non-homicide crimes are higher than in most industrial countries. Rates of assault, rape, and especially burglary are rising and will soon surpass the U.S. (why not commit burglary if one is sure there is no gun on the other side.) For even a better example, see Australia - a nation considering repealing its fairly fresh ban on firarms.
Lastly, you say that, but for criminals with guns, citizens would not need guns for defense. How is a 100 pound woman supposed to protect herself from a 300 pound rapist.
I have been raised in a gun culture / gun community. As a kid, I learned to respect guns and would no more play with or mishandle a gun than I would any other tool, vehicle, or other dangerous item in my father's garage. I have taught my sons similiarly, and would make even more an effort to teach a daughter - in order to put her on equal physical footing with any male.
Why the ACLU and NOW do not support gun rights is beyond me...
In Britain, rates of non-homicide crimes are higher than in most industrial countries. Rates of assault, rape, and especially burglary are rising and will soon surpass the U.S. (why not commit burglary if one is sure there is no gun on the other side.) For even a better example, see Australia - a nation considering repealing its fairly fresh ban on firarms.
Lastly, you say that, but for criminals with guns, citizens would not need guns for defense. How is a 100 pound woman supposed to protect herself from a 300 pound rapist.
I have been raised in a gun culture / gun community. As a kid, I learned to respect guns and would no more play with or mishandle a gun than I would any other tool, vehicle, or other dangerous item in my father's garage. I have taught my sons similiarly, and would make even more an effort to teach a daughter - in order to put her on equal physical footing with any male.
Why the ACLU and NOW do not support gun rights is beyond me...
Gun control worked perfectly well in Nazi Germany, German occupied France, and Soviet Russia. I also works well in North Korea.
The function of gun control laws is to eliminate the ability of the people to throw off a tyranical government. Once that ability is gone, all rights are theoretical.
Gun control will work just fine here too, if Leftists ever acheive enough power to implement registration or confiscation.
The function of gun control laws is to eliminate the ability of the people to throw off a tyranical government. Once that ability is gone, all rights are theoretical.
Gun control will work just fine here too, if Leftists ever acheive enough power to implement registration or confiscation.
Yes, there are other types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, but they're not relevant to this discussion so I didn't mention them.
Regarding threats to a president: According to the Supreme Court, in order for such a threat to lose First Amendment protection the government must prove that there was a "true threat," as opposed to mere "political hyperbole." Watts v. U.S., 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). If anyone believes that remarks made by students in a classroom discussion concerning President Bush and the U.S. Government's role in Iraq were true threats, he or she is fanatically delusional. Even without knowing what was said, this was clearly a case of students discussing an issue and likely blowing off steam, the accumulation of which was caused by the powerlessness felt by the tens of millions of us who have protested the illegal and immoral attack of Iraq on the streets, but who have been totally ignored by this fascist administration.
At any rate, this speech is clearly protected, regardless of what the SS goons, Ashcroft, or any other fascists say or think. I learned before high school that we have the First Amendment right to advocate ANYTHING, so long as we don't actively and actually threaten anyone.
Regarding threats to a president: According to the Supreme Court, in order for such a threat to lose First Amendment protection the government must prove that there was a "true threat," as opposed to mere "political hyperbole." Watts v. U.S., 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). If anyone believes that remarks made by students in a classroom discussion concerning President Bush and the U.S. Government's role in Iraq were true threats, he or she is fanatically delusional. Even without knowing what was said, this was clearly a case of students discussing an issue and likely blowing off steam, the accumulation of which was caused by the powerlessness felt by the tens of millions of us who have protested the illegal and immoral attack of Iraq on the streets, but who have been totally ignored by this fascist administration.
At any rate, this speech is clearly protected, regardless of what the SS goons, Ashcroft, or any other fascists say or think. I learned before high school that we have the First Amendment right to advocate ANYTHING, so long as we don't actively and actually threaten anyone.
Wolverine,
You're defending political speech, and I am defending the actions of the government when the president is threatened. We do not know the facts of this case, but they would be illuminating.
Another thing to remember is that, albeit unprofessionally conducted, the actions in this case by the g-men amounted to merely an investigation. To my knowledge, the students were not arrested or otherwise sanctioned for what they said. Surely you'd agree that, at some point, it's o.k. to investigate what's being said about harming an official. Perhaps the proper stance at this point by the students is not invocation of the 1st Amdt, but rather filing a complaint regarding the g-men's conduct.
I'll pull your cite later, but let me say for now that I do not advocate crackdowns on political speech. Do you join me in condemning threats against the president?
You're defending political speech, and I am defending the actions of the government when the president is threatened. We do not know the facts of this case, but they would be illuminating.
Another thing to remember is that, albeit unprofessionally conducted, the actions in this case by the g-men amounted to merely an investigation. To my knowledge, the students were not arrested or otherwise sanctioned for what they said. Surely you'd agree that, at some point, it's o.k. to investigate what's being said about harming an official. Perhaps the proper stance at this point by the students is not invocation of the 1st Amdt, but rather filing a complaint regarding the g-men's conduct.
I'll pull your cite later, but let me say for now that I do not advocate crackdowns on political speech. Do you join me in condemning threats against the president?
I do not condemn threats against Bush any more than threats against anyone else, and I do not condemn them anywhere near as strongly as I condemn Bush's actual violence against others. Bush is a criminal who stole the White House and has proceeded to 1) destroy the environment, 2) destroy human and civil rights, and 3) directly kill thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. If one believes in capital punishment, Bush and his cabinet are prime candidates.
That said, I don't like violence, though it's sometimes necessary for self defense. However, instead of concentrating on so-called threats against Bush (that are very unlikely to have any likelihood of fruition), we should concentrate on the REAL VIOLENCE perpetrated by Bush and his ilk. Violence begets violence. If Americans refuse to learn this simple fact, they can look forward to more 911-type attacks, as American violence against other countries and their populations -- mainly for oil -- was the root cause of that attack.
That said, I don't like violence, though it's sometimes necessary for self defense. However, instead of concentrating on so-called threats against Bush (that are very unlikely to have any likelihood of fruition), we should concentrate on the REAL VIOLENCE perpetrated by Bush and his ilk. Violence begets violence. If Americans refuse to learn this simple fact, they can look forward to more 911-type attacks, as American violence against other countries and their populations -- mainly for oil -- was the root cause of that attack.
Wow Wolverine,
For a minute there I was starting to think you were a man of law and reason. Your latest diatribe is a perfect example while you are in the very tiny minority. I even thought you might be a Michigan alum, now I think you are one of the mutant x-men.
If it's true that violence begets violence, then we've been screwed since Cain and Abel. I seriously doubt that, but for our attack on Saddam, the violence was going to stop. Are you willing to convert to Islam to stop the violence? Nothing short of that will stop the likes of Bin Laden.
For a minute there I was starting to think you were a man of law and reason. Your latest diatribe is a perfect example while you are in the very tiny minority. I even thought you might be a Michigan alum, now I think you are one of the mutant x-men.
If it's true that violence begets violence, then we've been screwed since Cain and Abel. I seriously doubt that, but for our attack on Saddam, the violence was going to stop. Are you willing to convert to Islam to stop the violence? Nothing short of that will stop the likes of Bin Laden.
Sure, guns can be useful, but what is wrong with registering them? A gun is a dangerous weapon that requires education and training to use. If people must be licensed to drive a car, why should they not be licensed to posess a firearm?
For the 117,649th time, what does Saddam Hussein have to do with Osama bin Laden?
Come on, people.
PS: Sorry about that post that came though five times. I t kept telling me that the publishing failed, so I tried again until it said it worked. Apparently, it worked every time.
Come on, people.
PS: Sorry about that post that came though five times. I t kept telling me that the publishing failed, so I tried again until it said it worked. Apparently, it worked every time.
It could facilitate a government gun grab. If they don't know where they are, they can't grab them. Do you really want to live in a place where the government has a monopoly on firearms? We don't. Don't try to force us. If you do, you will fail, and more people will die than if you had left us alone.
Instead of responding to my points, you merely engaged in name-calling (“mutant x-men”). I’ll outline those points below.
First, why should a president be worshipped as if he is some god? Threats against him are no more objectionable than against anyone else.
(As an aside, I feel U.S. presidents have far too much power, as their elections are the least representative of all other elected officials due to the manipulations of the voters that are possible when overly large number of people vote for one office. A government where the House of Representatives had more power and the president less would be far more representative, though public financing of campaigns and proportional representation are both needed in order to make a truly representative government.)
Second, why should threats by high school students, which are no more than talk and have very little, if any, chance of being actualized, be condemned as strongly as actual violence?
Third, I said that Bush stole the White House for three reasons:
1) Gore got 500,000 more votes;
2) Even if you believe that the anachronistic, undemocratic electoral college is legitimate – which I do not – Bush’s brother in Florida helped him steal the election by illegally preventing a large number of blacks, almost all of whom would have voted for Gore, from voting. Without this, Gore would have clearly won Florida; and
3) Five dishonest members of the Supreme Court gave the White House to Bush. The Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case (elections are within the purview of states, not the federal government, but I guess states’ rights only matters when pushing a right wing agenda), and Bush’s Equal Protection claims were totally without merit (read the case).
When this type of coup happened in other countries such as Peru, the criminal was thrown out or imprisoned. It is shameful that the majority of the American people, who supported Gore, didn’t have the conviction to do the same to Bush.
Regarding violence, I never said that “but for our attack on Saddam, the violence was going to stop.” What I said was that violence begets violence, so that attacking Iraq will create even more violence, not less. The recent attack in Saudi Arabia is an example of what’s in store.
Regarding bin Laden, I am as repulsed by him and Al Qaeda as I am by Bush and his ilk. However, bin Laden is a direct product of a U.S. foreign policy that harms and kills others around the world for the benefit of U.S. businesses and, to a lesser extent, the American public. Without this foreign policy, bin Laden and his type would not be able to recruit enough followers to do anything significant, and likely would not even target the U.S. (read his demands). What will stop the likes of bin Laden is for the U.S. to stop harming the people they recruit.
Moreover, the U.S. did not attack bin Laden; it attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, killing thousands of innocent civilians in each country. While bin Laden might have been operating out of Afghanistan, that country did not attack the U.S. Should the U.S. be attacked for the actions of those who happen to operate from here? Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attack. Anyone who knows anything about the politics of the Middle East knows that bin Laden and Saddam hate each other as much as they hate the U.S.
We need not convert to Islam in order to stop the likes of bin Laden. We must simply prevent our government from harming others around the world. Nothing short of THIS will stop these types of people.
First, why should a president be worshipped as if he is some god? Threats against him are no more objectionable than against anyone else.
(As an aside, I feel U.S. presidents have far too much power, as their elections are the least representative of all other elected officials due to the manipulations of the voters that are possible when overly large number of people vote for one office. A government where the House of Representatives had more power and the president less would be far more representative, though public financing of campaigns and proportional representation are both needed in order to make a truly representative government.)
Second, why should threats by high school students, which are no more than talk and have very little, if any, chance of being actualized, be condemned as strongly as actual violence?
Third, I said that Bush stole the White House for three reasons:
1) Gore got 500,000 more votes;
2) Even if you believe that the anachronistic, undemocratic electoral college is legitimate – which I do not – Bush’s brother in Florida helped him steal the election by illegally preventing a large number of blacks, almost all of whom would have voted for Gore, from voting. Without this, Gore would have clearly won Florida; and
3) Five dishonest members of the Supreme Court gave the White House to Bush. The Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case (elections are within the purview of states, not the federal government, but I guess states’ rights only matters when pushing a right wing agenda), and Bush’s Equal Protection claims were totally without merit (read the case).
When this type of coup happened in other countries such as Peru, the criminal was thrown out or imprisoned. It is shameful that the majority of the American people, who supported Gore, didn’t have the conviction to do the same to Bush.
Regarding violence, I never said that “but for our attack on Saddam, the violence was going to stop.” What I said was that violence begets violence, so that attacking Iraq will create even more violence, not less. The recent attack in Saudi Arabia is an example of what’s in store.
Regarding bin Laden, I am as repulsed by him and Al Qaeda as I am by Bush and his ilk. However, bin Laden is a direct product of a U.S. foreign policy that harms and kills others around the world for the benefit of U.S. businesses and, to a lesser extent, the American public. Without this foreign policy, bin Laden and his type would not be able to recruit enough followers to do anything significant, and likely would not even target the U.S. (read his demands). What will stop the likes of bin Laden is for the U.S. to stop harming the people they recruit.
Moreover, the U.S. did not attack bin Laden; it attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, killing thousands of innocent civilians in each country. While bin Laden might have been operating out of Afghanistan, that country did not attack the U.S. Should the U.S. be attacked for the actions of those who happen to operate from here? Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attack. Anyone who knows anything about the politics of the Middle East knows that bin Laden and Saddam hate each other as much as they hate the U.S.
We need not convert to Islam in order to stop the likes of bin Laden. We must simply prevent our government from harming others around the world. Nothing short of THIS will stop these types of people.
apparently the teachers name is ms. whitney and she always seemed a bit "strange" to the other teachers. but she thought she was doing the right thing...and the asian boys who were interogated are not american citizens so everyones worried about the risk of deportation
I can't believe you're going into the whole stolen election bit. That's why I didn't want to go there. I'll try to sum it up by saying we have to follow the Constitution, which provides for the indirect election by electoral college. It also has a 14th Amendment, which allows the Court to step in in traditional state matters (as an aside, how 'bout Rowe v. Wade in light of your concern of state's rights?). Lastly, on the election issue, subsequent recounts proved that Gore would have lost anyway. His election was affirmed by the people in the 2002 Repub landslide, and will be again in 2004.
Now, no one is worshipping Bush. We have to take threats against him more seriously b/c he's a little more important than you and I, wouldn't you say? I've already said that, if the g-men behaved unprofessionally, that's grounds for a complaint and possible reprimand - not for an extension of the 1st amendment to allow threats against a prez.
Lastly, that'd be real nice if we could all be friends throughout the world and nobody would get hurt. However, you and I just disagree as to whether that is possible. The last century taught us that sometimes there is evil in the world and sometimes it can only be eradicated with force.
P.S. - quick question - are you a law student?
Now, no one is worshipping Bush. We have to take threats against him more seriously b/c he's a little more important than you and I, wouldn't you say? I've already said that, if the g-men behaved unprofessionally, that's grounds for a complaint and possible reprimand - not for an extension of the 1st amendment to allow threats against a prez.
Lastly, that'd be real nice if we could all be friends throughout the world and nobody would get hurt. However, you and I just disagree as to whether that is possible. The last century taught us that sometimes there is evil in the world and sometimes it can only be eradicated with force.
P.S. - quick question - are you a law student?
I can understand why you don’t want to discuss the theft of the 2000 election, since your candidate was the one who stole it. However, it’s clear that the election was stolen.
First, you never answered my point that Bush’s brother in Florida illegally prevented many blacks from voting, which caused his brother to seem to win the popular vote there. This has been documented in both The Guardian of London and in a documentary film. Because the mainstream media in the U.S. has been totally taken over by corporate propaganda, most Americans are not aware of this fact that is widely known in other parts of the world.
Second, it’s not true that subsequent counts found that Bush won Florida; the initial recounts found that, but the final, more comprehensive one found just the opposite. I believe it was a Time Magazine study, but I’m not sure. (Of course, that report wasn’t released until over a year after the (s)election, so that most people wouldn’t care by that point.)
Regarding your comments:
Following the Constitution would have meant that the federal courts stay out of the dispute, allowing the Florida Supreme Court to decide. As you know, the federal government is limited in its jurisdiction, and it had none here. The Equal Protection claim in this case was laughable and should have been thrown out immediately, so it provided no real jurisdiction for the feds. Unfortunately, the federal judges have shown that they are dishonest and will vote their ideologies instead of following the laws, which is what five of the Supremes did in Bush v. Gore.
Bush is more important than we are? Well, so was Hitler if you measure importance by power wielded. Because Bush is very similar to Hitler, the best thing that could happen to the planet would be for him and his cabinet to disappear. Yes, he’s important, but in a very negative way.
I don’t disagree that there is evil in the world that must be fought. Where we disagree is that I think people like Bush are that evil, and that the U.S. is truly the evil empire. Americans are the most selfish, greedy, materialistic people on Earth, and America must be stopped before it destroys a vast amount of life on Earth, along with many other people and their cultures. Fundamentalist religious fanatics are that evil, too, but in the U.S. the biggest religious fanatic problem is from Christians, like Bush and his cabinet, not from Muslims.
That said, I highly dislike ALL religions, because they teach that spirit and flesh are separate, which excuses evil acts. Religion is also anti-spiritual. Spirituality is what is needed, not phony religions.
Finally, I have graduated from law school and am awaiting the results of the bar exam.
First, you never answered my point that Bush’s brother in Florida illegally prevented many blacks from voting, which caused his brother to seem to win the popular vote there. This has been documented in both The Guardian of London and in a documentary film. Because the mainstream media in the U.S. has been totally taken over by corporate propaganda, most Americans are not aware of this fact that is widely known in other parts of the world.
Second, it’s not true that subsequent counts found that Bush won Florida; the initial recounts found that, but the final, more comprehensive one found just the opposite. I believe it was a Time Magazine study, but I’m not sure. (Of course, that report wasn’t released until over a year after the (s)election, so that most people wouldn’t care by that point.)
Regarding your comments:
Following the Constitution would have meant that the federal courts stay out of the dispute, allowing the Florida Supreme Court to decide. As you know, the federal government is limited in its jurisdiction, and it had none here. The Equal Protection claim in this case was laughable and should have been thrown out immediately, so it provided no real jurisdiction for the feds. Unfortunately, the federal judges have shown that they are dishonest and will vote their ideologies instead of following the laws, which is what five of the Supremes did in Bush v. Gore.
Bush is more important than we are? Well, so was Hitler if you measure importance by power wielded. Because Bush is very similar to Hitler, the best thing that could happen to the planet would be for him and his cabinet to disappear. Yes, he’s important, but in a very negative way.
I don’t disagree that there is evil in the world that must be fought. Where we disagree is that I think people like Bush are that evil, and that the U.S. is truly the evil empire. Americans are the most selfish, greedy, materialistic people on Earth, and America must be stopped before it destroys a vast amount of life on Earth, along with many other people and their cultures. Fundamentalist religious fanatics are that evil, too, but in the U.S. the biggest religious fanatic problem is from Christians, like Bush and his cabinet, not from Muslims.
That said, I highly dislike ALL religions, because they teach that spirit and flesh are separate, which excuses evil acts. Religion is also anti-spiritual. Spirituality is what is needed, not phony religions.
Finally, I have graduated from law school and am awaiting the results of the bar exam.
You've at least shown that you despise religion, Americans, and the rule of law. This is the real position of the anti-war movement.
Should you pass the bar exam, are you going to take the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.S. - as I did this past fall when I was sworn in? If you take the oath, will you still call Supreme Court rulings "illegitimate"?
I suggest you refine your language and start saying things like "I disagree..." instead of "illegitimate". Failing to recognize the legitimacy of the Constitution and its provisions is in no way upholding it. I'd hate to see you become a hypocrite.
Should you pass the bar exam, are you going to take the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.S. - as I did this past fall when I was sworn in? If you take the oath, will you still call Supreme Court rulings "illegitimate"?
I suggest you refine your language and start saying things like "I disagree..." instead of "illegitimate". Failing to recognize the legitimacy of the Constitution and its provisions is in no way upholding it. I'd hate to see you become a hypocrite.
What the hell is wrong with some of the people down there? Teachers call the FBI on their students for remarks in classroom. That's nuts... wow. Oh.. and then, a couple of SS agents ramrod these kids into interrogation where they are told to play ball or face deportation. wow. That's nuts...
How do the remaining sane folk keep their composure? Why have they kept their silence?
How do the remaining sane folk keep their composure? Why have they kept their silence?
For more information:
http://www.victoria.indymedia.org
Although this article is shocking, it is not hard to believe. There has been many controversial things that have gone on in this district (most famous, the ebonics issue) so I don't find it hard to believe that this happened. The district has a mixture of teachers that are very liberal and educated and some that you wonder "Where did they find these people?" It's definitely sad that the students had to go thought this but as a former Oakland student, it takes a lot to shock me.
What's up Wolverine? We all want to know if you passed the bar, are you gonna lie when you take that oath? Or, are you going to start upholding and defending the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
I'm getting worried about you little buddy.
I'm getting worried about you little buddy.
Well, I would have to say that this is a very interesting discussion. All in all, Wolverine's views follow a similar patern as mine. But, I am an uneducated (only an engineering degree) person who has only has access to information and propaganda that is available to me. Luckily, I don't watch telivision and get most of my news from NPR and the net.
I would say that the Bush regime is very corrupt and should be replaced in 2004. But, America ... No 86 that... But, our country's economic system, capitalism (some would say facism) is the source of all our woes. And until the system changes people will always take what they can, how ever they can take it. Who knows, someday the world may call our national debt to be due, then i.m.o. anarchy.....
I would say that the Bush regime is very corrupt and should be replaced in 2004. But, America ... No 86 that... But, our country's economic system, capitalism (some would say facism) is the source of all our woes. And until the system changes people will always take what they can, how ever they can take it. Who knows, someday the world may call our national debt to be due, then i.m.o. anarchy.....
Dave, from your engineering perspective, I'm sure you've analyzed and measured the efficiency of other economic systems. Do tell - which other system is more efficient at allocating resources, that is, at satisfying the wants and needs of its people?
The important thing is that stories like this and the Oakland protest fiasco are not being heard outside this area, except for an occassional small blurb on CNN. These aren't national issues even though they are of such importance nationally. Until the American Public demands good news coverage or the press becomes responsible, we need to swap stories with our friends and family to assure we have a fair national view on events.
The important thing is that stories like this and the Oakland protest fiasco are not being heard outside this area, except for an occassional small blurb on CNN. These aren't national issues even though they are of such importance nationally. Until the American Public demands good news coverage or the press becomes responsible, we need to swap stories with our friends and family to assure we have a fair national view on events.
I find many of these stories which do not make headline news very alarming. I am reminded so much of things I learned in regards to the history of Germany, and how so many people slowly fell under the power of a controlling empire. Ideas and intentions which started out good at rebuilding a nation. Things which restored the people's sense of culture, freedom, history things which brought a whole country together. But in the End, they became the oppressors instead of the oppressed. Many people which were mislead into believing falsehoods. A whole country was lead in a wrong direction. The people of Germany did not see the leadership for what it really was until it was too late, and by that time the country was divided within itself. Those who had the power and those which feared the power. Our Country I fear is walking a fine line. Our government is supposed to have a so-called system of "Checks and Balances" built into it's organization, when this system of "Checks and Balances" fails the people, when it is ignored, when it can no longer function, then we risk the very foundations which this country was built upon. The very definition of our enemies both foreign and domestic in my opinion is anybody which seeks to tear at the very foundation which this country is built upon. The foundation which the founding fathers laid out a long time ago. In order to fully understand the foundations and intentions of our founding fathers many people do not realize the contributions which were made. Only when one explores the Essays and writting of the Founding Fathers to we gain a full comprehension of the context to which they intended. Yet, the very words they used are being massaged and reinterpreted according to the desires of those which wish to tear into this foundation. Now, this goes without saying.. I can not approve of the leadership in those countries which the US has gone to war with either. I am reminded of something my grandmother taught me as a child.. "Two wrongs does not make a right". I find nothing inregards to the concept of "upright behavior" in those involved in the current conflicts of the world. With regards to 911, this was a shock to the people of nation. It opened the eyes and made people realize that they had been living life with a false sense of security. I was astonished by the number of people who, would look out their doors, go shopping with the worry that a terrorist was lurking behind a tree. Yet, there were probally more dangers from common criminals roaming the land, common criminals which exist in all societies. These issues are nothing new, for some societies it's an everyday occurance. Some people are not safe walking out the door to grab a loaf of bread, for they may be shot, they may encounter a bomb, they come home only to find their family had been killed, or home was distroyed by a tank. They live life in constant worry and fear. The reality of death and "true terror" to these people is an everyday event. No, I was not terrified by 911, I will admit... However, I was terrified by the riots which broke out in California when they occured. I watched buildings burning on TV, people beating one another up and stealing and looting. What was shocking the most was watching one man hauled from his truck and beat to death. It did not take much to trigger this event, it did not take monthes nor years of special training. Now in regards to all this homeland security... If one is to speak out against the wrong doings of our government, then we are branded as a terrorist. Yet, we can go to other countries and Kill people with D.U. Depleted Uranium weapons. Around 160,000 Gulf War Veterns have been classified permanently disabled and 8000 have died because we used D.U. Weapons. The number of people effected by this action far surpass the number of people from 911. To make matters worse this does not count the number of Civilians in Iraq which are now Free from an Evil Empire. We here in Amercia now the history of "Love Canal" and other waste dumping grounds.. we all were in Shock at what happened during "3 Mile Island" with the Nuclear power plant. Yet, the people which represent our country, represent all Americans during war, can allow the use of D.U. Weapons? The use of such Radio active weapons has taken it's toll on our own and those innocent in other countries. Yet, there is no regulating body against this? No system of "Checks and Balances"? Mind you that it is not the action of going to war with bothers me, it the actions of how we go to war. At least during the time of the cold war, there was another country which was contender as a world power. If that contender disagreed with our actions or vice versa, there some form of compromise or agreement would be met. There is nobody to speak out and protest... I am concerned and more fearful of our own government. When it can haul in the youth of our nation and seek to crush the freedom of speach. I believe that if anything, the actions of our government just did nothing more than strengthen the belief's that these two youths have in regards to the President and our government. If this type of behavior and action becomes more of a trend in our society, I would make an educated guess that we will head towards another civil war of sorts in this country. After All look at what little it took to cause a "riot" out in LA? If you don't know what I am talking about I am referencing the aftermath of Rodney King. Well these are some of my thoughts on this subject. I find it sad that they people which have gone to war to protect my peace and freedom are all messed up and many have died from using Depleted Uranium weapons. I want to thank you guys whoever you are, for being there to protect and serve our country. I am sorry that our country has failed you. I feel aweful knowing you did this for me, an amercian citizen. I also feel aweful for the children and innocent people which are exposed to Depleted Uranium, I want to let you know I do not approve of it. I want to let these two kids which spoke out in class, the world is not fair and just. We can only control our own actions and choices as individuals. There often may evils in the world, there is also many beautiful things as well. Don't let the negatives bring your lives down so that it consumes you, for you will become part of the evil itself. Find that which is good, and do good for others. Cause nobody any harm nor malice. becareful in your choice of words... the word 'Kill' is being taken in literal context these days... not a good choice of words to use at all... Treat all words that you use to express your resentment and anger with wise thinking. They can be and will be used in "literal" context against you.
This long post has to come to a close.
This long post has to come to a close.
I can understand why you don’t want to discuss the theft of the 2000 election, since your candidate was the one who stole it. However, it’s clear that the election was stolen.
whenever you find yourself in a hole: stop digging.
The Democratic National Committee -and- "Al (hug-a-tree)Gore" both conceded, gave-up, , called it a day, get over it already.
Even Monica Lewinsky threw in the towel !
(they must have opened the pot clubs in S.F. again)
whenever you find yourself in a hole: stop digging.
The Democratic National Committee -and- "Al (hug-a-tree)Gore" both conceded, gave-up, , called it a day, get over it already.
Even Monica Lewinsky threw in the towel !
(they must have opened the pot clubs in S.F. again)
oh man, that's ridiculous! what next? cops posing as mcdonalds workers, and spying in cars from the drive thru?
oh wait..they did that already too....
oh wait..they did that already too....
For more information:
http://www.com3designs.com
no Law Enforcement Officer of any class can question or interview a kid under the age of 18 without a parent present or with permission from a parent it is just common sense and it is the law. you can read any school handbook that your child is issued in the begining of tthe school year and it will tell you that in the student handbook. now as for what happend at Oakland High School on April 23, 2003 that was totally against the law and those Agents from the U.S. Secret Service shall be suspended and put under review because it is obvisious that they screwed up big time as well as the School Principal it was his job as the Administrator to contact the Students Parents and advise the Parents that their Kids were going Interrogated by Federal Agents From the U.S. Secret Service before the Interrogation. as for the Federal Agents tell those Students that they "owned" them that and that they can't have no legal Representation was pure BS you ask me this whole thing was ludacris and very unprofessional.
The Constitution of the United States of America has been around alot longer than the U.S. Patriot Act or the Office of Homeland Security . Yet our rights are being discarded as if it were yesterday's news; the Government is accepting these new "blueprints" without remorse or any consideration for the general public . Ashcroft says that the new authority that the feds have , is for easier access to terrorist evidence before the terrorist can hide the evidence . Why did they announce the war with Iraq several months in advance ? If they want to stop so-called terrorists before they can hide evidence or abscound , then why did they make public their planned invasion of Iraq , to give Iraq time to hide anything they might have had ? Not to mention the insecurities that were felt by Wall Street during the months leading up to the war .
If the story of the two Oakland teens is true , then we might as well get ready for federal sponsored book burnings and persecution of any person that dares speak against the U.S. Empire . Freedom of censored speech is what we now have left . Its okay to say what you want , as long as you say it the way they want you to say it ; "all in all , its just another brick in the wall .
.
If the story of the two Oakland teens is true , then we might as well get ready for federal sponsored book burnings and persecution of any person that dares speak against the U.S. Empire . Freedom of censored speech is what we now have left . Its okay to say what you want , as long as you say it the way they want you to say it ; "all in all , its just another brick in the wall .
.
Oakland students attending the SF police brutality rally said the offending comment was, "Bush is whack."
At least, I think that's what they said. So the school teacher wasn't sure what that meant and called the SS on them?
That's my guess.
At least, I think that's what they said. So the school teacher wasn't sure what that meant and called the SS on them?
That's my guess.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$470.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network