While I am all for individual freedom, there is the personal responsibility issue. You are forgetting the whole lesson of this financial crisis. In modern America, responsibility has been replaced with the Nanny State protecting us from our bad choices. If drugs were legalized, all of the drug addicts - and if China's legalization of opium in the 1800's tells us anything, there will be lots of drug addicts - would need treatment. And guess who would pay for that? Yes, the American taxpayer, rather than, say, the dumbasses who got addicted. I'm guessing any tax revenues raised on drugs would quickly be outspent by Congress on prevention and treatment programs.
Freedom without responsibility is bound to take away someone else's freedom - usually the taxpayer's.
As a percentage of GDP we spend a *lot* less now than we did back in the 1960's (17% to 45%). It is entitlements, now 60% of our 3 trillion budget, that is killing the US. So 17% on something the Constitution requires is too much, whereas 60% on something the Constitution is silent on is not enough. Got it.
As for 'World Police,' yeah, go ask Rwandans and those in Darfur how America sitting back and letting the 'world community' deal with evil has worked out for them.
OK, going to increase my mileage by doing it myself, I'll just hook up some battery cables to my fuel lines to charge the gas. Alrighty then, black lead to ground, other end to fuel line. Check. Red lead to positive terminal, check. Now, I'll complete the circuit, just let me affix the read lead to the fuel l
I type this laying on my bed - with my "laptop" lying next to me. And before you guys make the predictable "that's all you'll ever have lying next to you" jokes, I first got this laptop so I could play video games lying next to my girlfriend as she does her homework on her laptop.
Seriously, on a 17" screen with a decent video card (nvidia go 7900gs), I *could* play most modern games pretty well and look great, with my trackball mouse added on (I do that with my desktop too). The problem is, a 17" laptop is like sitting a TV on your "lap." You really can't, unless you are trying to get sterile.
The real problem is heat dissipation. Until now, only 17" form factor laptops could (theoretically) tolerate such heat. Even the 17" Dells are having huge failure rates due to their insufficient heat removal schemes. My video card is now borked, giving BSODs, and the notebook forums are rife which such stories. So let's see a mini with a robust video card get away with it.
The market will define itself, not what hand-wringers think it should be. If the slightly-larded up Netbooks sell, well then, that's the market. If the race to the bottom, barebones lappies are what people want, then that will be what the market produces.
Markets don't die, they adapt to what consumers want, not how neato some people think a sub-$500 laptop is for society.
Even if Congress passes and later overrides a veto, Cheney and/or Bush will simply starve it out of significance, if not existence. But be wary of the media industry cartels (RIAA, MPAA, BSA members-- others will likely list them up) lobbying the White House directly to get the President to appoint a copyright czar by executive order!
Good for Bush that he is preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution, which defines the executive branch as a separate, co-equal branch. All I hear on Slashdot is how Bush tears up the Constitution, but here he is standing up to Congress just not because they are attempting to turn the FBI into copyright cops, but also to defend the presidency from becoming Congress's lapdog. This is *exactly* why there is a veto power! And all you guys can do is dog him? Let's see some intellectual dishonesty here.
Bottom line, good for Bush, and Leahy and Specter should be run out of town on a rail. If only someone in the media would challenge them on this issue, but as usual, the mainstream media is too busy rooting for Obama to take on these bought-and-paid-for crooks on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Clinton of 1992 and 1993 was just terrible but once he lost the Congress and had to bend to the other side, partisanship went up, but the country was run far more effectively.
Let's recall, Clinton ran as a new Democrat, the Democratic Leadership Council type of moderate (now called "Blue Dog" Democrats) who claimed he would govern from the center. But once Clinton got in office, the partisan libs in Congress told him, "here's how it's gonna be." This was a disaster for Clinton politically, and the Dems lost both houses of Congress.
The sad part is it was the GOP Newt Gingrich Congress that came in 1994 that forced Clinton to balance the budget, and actually shut down the government because Clinton wouldn't cap spending enough. Gingrich was pilloried in the media at the time (see: "the Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" - nice fair and balanced reporting there, Newsweek), but now Clinton gets the credit for the balanced budgets of the era! But yeah, it's Fox News that is biased.
Cheney will simply starve the office the way Nixon starved many of Johnson's now-defunct offices: Assign cronies to them.
Johnson is the one who put Social Security revenues into the general fund. Talk about starving something. Now the SS "trust fund" consists of IOUs in a file cabinet.
BSOD's produce countless variations of error messages (some software, some hardware), so shouldn't they be viewed as a vehicle for error messages, rather than error messages themselves?
It's like saying an ocean is my favorite type of animal, as opposed to a dolphin.
No, these were logical deductions following from the fact that you felt that denying a child education were permissible under some circumstances, as education could be too expensive.
No, what I said was denying a child ("Oh, think of the children!!!") an education that he does not appreciate or follow the rules of is permissible. Because I don't like wasting money on ingrates or on a system that doesn't work doesn't make me selfish or greedy or bigoted when my local school district is spending $10K per pupil, with abyssal results. Liberals, OTOH, believe that good intentions are enough, regardless of results.
"Bleeding heart" is a colloquial term specifically used to add a certain connotation to an argument, an actual ad hominem fallacy.
No, your emotional, knee-jerk, hysterical reaction made me deduce you were a bleeding heart liberal. Your hypocrisy about calling names - as well as mischaracterizing what I said - only confirms my conviction that you are, in fact, a lib.
I suppose not, but the fact that people view him as a hero in times of severe economic disparity should tell you that something is wrong with your beliefs.
Or that the majority isn't always right, which is why we have a Constitution to check a tyranny of the majority, and why the income tax was banned in America for most of its history.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. - Unknown
In other words, stealing other peoples' money and giving it to someone else does not make the thief nor the victim a good person. Only voluntarily given charity constitutes an altruistic act. And Americans spend more on foreign aid than any other country.
*****
The "bleeding heart" label is a nice touch. It adds an ad hominem flavor to your argument that's so typical of American bigotry.
As opposed to you calling me "selfish," "greedy," and "bigoted?" I guess ad hominem attacks are only permissible when non-Americans are uttering them.
For the record, you are the one who started calling out the other person's nationality.
You didn't actually mention Canada as a bastion for free speech rights, did you? Go ask Mark Steyn, who was just tried for human rights violations by some scary Orwellian thing called the Ontario Human Rights Commission for commenting about Islam. Clearly, you cannot speak your mind freely in Canada or some "human rights" tribunal will have you in the dock.
Funding public education is one of the few things that makes competition fair between both rich and poor students. You believe that poor behavior of other students shouldn't detract from your child's education, and rightly so. What I can't believe is that in the same breath you talk about the right to take away someone else's child's opportunity to be educated.
The two are related. I didn't say I wanted to take away the opportunity. I want to take away the blown opportunity for kids who want to act up, get bad grades, and be fuck-ups. Appreciate the generosity of the taxpayers, and stay in school. Be an asshole, and lose your school privileges! Right now, it is public school kids who have the sense of entitlement, "fuck you teacher, it is my right to be here!" And that is backed up by many parents, who think they are paying taxes for their schools, when they probably are not (upper middle class and the rich pay most of the taxes). I assure you I never had that attitude in private school, because my ass would be thrown out the door.
How selfish and greedy can you get?
When the government puts a gun to my head and steals my money and wastes it, pretty goddamned selfish and greedy.
The sad part is that I bet you're proud of this misguided attitude toward your fellow man. I hope your child has the wisdom to see past your bigotry.
So now not wanting my increasing taxes wasted in a failing public school system ("just give us more money and this time it will work!") constitutes "bigotry." Wow. Dude, compulsory government redistribution of wealth is not a noble act. Robin Hood was not an altruist.
Just keep in mind that it is conservatives, not liberals, who give the most money to charity. We just think that the private sector and private choice does a better job of determining what is "fair." Which is why we conservatives like school vouchers.
While usually I am very skeptical of non-lawyers analyzing cases for me, I think this guy's logic is pretty strong here.
Well I am a lawyer, and you should be skeptical of them too. But read the article. My point was that the main argument for school suppression (like that loaded word?) of speech is:
In court papers, the plaintiffs' team argued that the suspension ran afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court's historic 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, which held that student speech may not be punished unless it caused a "substantial and material disruption at the school."
************
No, the question is whether a government official has the right to arbitratily punish a child for saying something the official didn't like. They shouldn't have that power. There are plenty of avenues for the injured principal to take. A libel/slander suit, or calling up the parent to tell them what happened.
Not sure if punishing a kid for calling the principal a pedophile is arbitrary, but you have obviously never dealt with modern parents as a K-12 teacher. Even as a college professor, I've encountered this helicopter parent syndrome, where the kid is always right. "Not my sweet little darling!"
After all, is it not the parents who filed this suit as guardians? Sounds like those parents are really looking to teach their kid respect for teachers and authority figures.
Hope they enjoy the alcohol and drugs [at private school]. I wouldn't want my kids to spend too much time around a bunch of bored rich kids with massive senses of entitlement.
Please. My dad was a salesman and my parents sacrificed driving new cars and vacations so I could go to a good private school. Entitlement? My parents reminded me daily that if I didn't keep my grades up I'd be down at the local loser public school. And the kids I went to school with thought I was rich because my dad had a Harley (which he won in a contest). I had to wake up at 5:40 AM to catch the public bus at 6:30 and get to school 25 miles away by 8:00 AM. Not exactly a limo. Rich kids my ass. Talk back to a priest in my day, and your smart ass would get knocked flat on your back.
And as for drugs, I assure you that carried the death penalty at my school. Of course, some parents do, in fact, send their children to expensive babysitting private schools for rich kids. But isn't your whole point that parents know best how to raise their kids?
As a conservative with strong libertarian leanings, I agree that compulsory education has some serious problems. But an uneducated populace is expensive as well. Promise me I won't have to pay more for those dumbass dropouts (prison, welfare, low wage redistribution, and other pathologies) than for their education, and I'd agree.
I'm not sure if increasing the current dropout rate would actually create a better society. Just as the idea of drug legalization has some merit, the actual practice in Nanny America might just lead to government-funded drug treatment, if not drug subsidies. I can see it now, Obamacare paying for medical marijuana with my tax dollars. But I digress. High school dropouts are expensive. If I could bury them with nuclear waste, great. But I doubt that would past constitutional muster either.
Hmm, nearly $5 million donated to Obama. Do you think the entertainment industry is donating all that money to Obama because he promised to reform the DMCA as more consumer-friendly?
Contrary to submitter's logic, this case wasn't decided the way it was to protect someone's feelings.
In fact, all the cases cited in opposition to Judge Munley's decision make it clear that to maintain order in a school environment, the students just can't say "fuck you" to a teacher or principal. The on-campus/off-campus distinction might have made clear sense in Tinker (1969), but now that every student has Internet access and a Myspace page makes it a lot more possible to create a serious disruption off-campus that spills into the school.
I'm big on free speech, but I also know that kids need boundaries and guidance as to how to behave in civilization. Left to their own devices, it would be Lord of the Flies.
I went to parochial school and knew I'd be thrown out if I did something off campus that disrespected the school or administrators. That students should be able to embarrass, harass, or defame school officials merely because taxpayers fund their school seems curious. The idea that the Constitution even applies to this taxpayer-funded service should be questioned. So my tax dollars should fund a very expensive service for some ungrateful, disobedient little shit who wants to disrespect said service (and taxpayer)?
Public education should be a privilege, not a right. Then maybe more so-called "students" would appreciate it, and student success rates would be better.
Just another reason my kids will go to private school.
Better for the kid to learn now that "free speech" is (and always has been) a crock of shit in the U.S
I'd like to see some case law support for your ludicrous assertion. Comparatively speaking, the US has the strongest free speech protections on the planet. That doesn't mean no restrictions, as no right is absolute. But your hysterical response just does not jive with the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are right, they will never know.
While I am all for individual freedom, there is the personal responsibility issue. You are forgetting the whole lesson of this financial crisis. In modern America, responsibility has been replaced with the Nanny State protecting us from our bad choices. If drugs were legalized, all of the drug addicts - and if China's legalization of opium in the 1800's tells us anything, there will be lots of drug addicts - would need treatment. And guess who would pay for that? Yes, the American taxpayer, rather than, say, the dumbasses who got addicted. I'm guessing any tax revenues raised on drugs would quickly be outspent by Congress on prevention and treatment programs.
Freedom without responsibility is bound to take away someone else's freedom - usually the taxpayer's.
As a percentage of GDP we spend a *lot* less now than we did back in the 1960's (17% to 45%). It is entitlements, now 60% of our 3 trillion budget, that is killing the US. So 17% on something the Constitution requires is too much, whereas 60% on something the Constitution is silent on is not enough. Got it.
As for 'World Police,' yeah, go ask Rwandans and those in Darfur how America sitting back and letting the 'world community' deal with evil has worked out for them.
OK, going to increase my mileage by doing it myself, I'll just hook up some battery cables to my fuel lines to charge the gas. Alrighty then, black lead to ground, other end to fuel line. Check. Red lead to positive terminal, check. Now, I'll complete the circuit, just let me affix the read lead to the fuel l
My DESKTOP COMPUTER is sitting on it.
I type this laying on my bed - with my "laptop" lying next to me. And before you guys make the predictable "that's all you'll ever have lying next to you" jokes, I first got this laptop so I could play video games lying next to my girlfriend as she does her homework on her laptop.
Just going to add some variables to the equation:
You should never mix X + a sociology book + Y.
There, fixed it.
Seriously, on a 17" screen with a decent video card (nvidia go 7900gs), I *could* play most modern games pretty well and look great, with my trackball mouse added on (I do that with my desktop too). The problem is, a 17" laptop is like sitting a TV on your "lap." You really can't, unless you are trying to get sterile.
The real problem is heat dissipation. Until now, only 17" form factor laptops could (theoretically) tolerate such heat. Even the 17" Dells are having huge failure rates due to their insufficient heat removal schemes. My video card is now borked, giving BSODs, and the notebook forums are rife which such stories. So let's see a mini with a robust video card get away with it.
is feature-creep killing this new market already?
The market will define itself, not what hand-wringers think it should be. If the slightly-larded up Netbooks sell, well then, that's the market. If the race to the bottom, barebones lappies are what people want, then that will be what the market produces.
Markets don't die, they adapt to what consumers want, not how neato some people think a sub-$500 laptop is for society.
Even if Congress passes and later overrides a veto, Cheney and/or Bush will simply starve it out of significance, if not existence. But be wary of the media industry cartels (RIAA, MPAA, BSA members-- others will likely list them up) lobbying the White House directly to get the President to appoint a copyright czar by executive order!
And who is the media industry donating the most money to?
And Slashdotters think Bush is the enemy.
Good for Bush that he is preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution, which defines the executive branch as a separate, co-equal branch. All I hear on Slashdot is how Bush tears up the Constitution, but here he is standing up to Congress just not because they are attempting to turn the FBI into copyright cops, but also to defend the presidency from becoming Congress's lapdog. This is *exactly* why there is a veto power! And all you guys can do is dog him? Let's see some intellectual dishonesty here.
Bottom line, good for Bush, and Leahy and Specter should be run out of town on a rail. If only someone in the media would challenge them on this issue, but as usual, the mainstream media is too busy rooting for Obama to take on these bought-and-paid-for crooks on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And let's not forget who is getting the most lobbying money from Big Entertainment.
Clinton of 1992 and 1993 was just terrible but once he lost the Congress and had to bend to the other side, partisanship went up, but the country was run far more effectively.
Let's recall, Clinton ran as a new Democrat, the Democratic Leadership Council type of moderate (now called "Blue Dog" Democrats) who claimed he would govern from the center. But once Clinton got in office, the partisan libs in Congress told him, "here's how it's gonna be." This was a disaster for Clinton politically, and the Dems lost both houses of Congress.
The sad part is it was the GOP Newt Gingrich Congress that came in 1994 that forced Clinton to balance the budget, and actually shut down the government because Clinton wouldn't cap spending enough. Gingrich was pilloried in the media at the time (see: "the Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" - nice fair and balanced reporting there, Newsweek), but now Clinton gets the credit for the balanced budgets of the era! But yeah, it's Fox News that is biased.
Cheney will simply starve the office the way Nixon starved many of Johnson's now-defunct offices: Assign cronies to them.
Johnson is the one who put Social Security revenues into the general fund. Talk about starving something. Now the SS "trust fund" consists of IOUs in a file cabinet.
If you believe an Iraqi Air Force general.
Of course, only Fox News interviewed him, so maybe that's why Fox viewers think Saddam had WMD.
BSOD's produce countless variations of error messages (some software, some hardware), so shouldn't they be viewed as a vehicle for error messages, rather than error messages themselves?
It's like saying an ocean is my favorite type of animal, as opposed to a dolphin.
Apparently, you've never raised a 13-year-old girl.
No, these were logical deductions following from the fact that you felt that denying a child education were permissible under some circumstances, as education could be too expensive.
No, what I said was denying a child ("Oh, think of the children!!!") an education that he does not appreciate or follow the rules of is permissible. Because I don't like wasting money on ingrates or on a system that doesn't work doesn't make me selfish or greedy or bigoted when my local school district is spending $10K per pupil, with abyssal results. Liberals, OTOH, believe that good intentions are enough, regardless of results.
"Bleeding heart" is a colloquial term specifically used to add a certain connotation to an argument, an actual ad hominem fallacy.
No, your emotional, knee-jerk, hysterical reaction made me deduce you were a bleeding heart liberal. Your hypocrisy about calling names - as well as mischaracterizing what I said - only confirms my conviction that you are, in fact, a lib.
Instead of MSFT. I like Steve Jobs trying to increase my wealth as a shareholder.
Robin Hood was not an altruist.
I suppose not, but the fact that people view him as a hero in times of severe economic disparity should tell you that something is wrong with your beliefs.
Or that the majority isn't always right, which is why we have a Constitution to check a tyranny of the majority, and why the income tax was banned in America for most of its history.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. - Unknown
In other words, stealing other peoples' money and giving it to someone else does not make the thief nor the victim a good person. Only voluntarily given charity constitutes an altruistic act. And Americans spend more on foreign aid than any other country.
*****
The "bleeding heart" label is a nice touch. It adds an ad hominem flavor to your argument that's so typical of American bigotry.
As opposed to you calling me "selfish," "greedy," and "bigoted?" I guess ad hominem attacks are only permissible when non-Americans are uttering them.
For the record, you are the one who started calling out the other person's nationality.
You didn't actually mention Canada as a bastion for free speech rights, did you? Go ask Mark Steyn, who was just tried for human rights violations by some scary Orwellian thing called the Ontario Human Rights Commission for commenting about Islam. Clearly, you cannot speak your mind freely in Canada or some "human rights" tribunal will have you in the dock.
Same thing in Finland. Don't criticize religious groups, or even offend them, and don't criticize ethnic groups, have a site linked to alleged child pr0n, try to produce scary films, or even try to criticize censorship in Finland!
None of those things could be done in the US of A. Nice try though.
Funding public education is one of the few things that makes competition fair between both rich and poor students. You believe that poor behavior of other students shouldn't detract from your child's education, and rightly so. What I can't believe is that in the same breath you talk about the right to take away someone else's child's opportunity to be educated.
The two are related. I didn't say I wanted to take away the opportunity. I want to take away the blown opportunity for kids who want to act up, get bad grades, and be fuck-ups. Appreciate the generosity of the taxpayers, and stay in school. Be an asshole, and lose your school privileges! Right now, it is public school kids who have the sense of entitlement, "fuck you teacher, it is my right to be here!" And that is backed up by many parents, who think they are paying taxes for their schools, when they probably are not (upper middle class and the rich pay most of the taxes). I assure you I never had that attitude in private school, because my ass would be thrown out the door.
How selfish and greedy can you get?
When the government puts a gun to my head and steals my money and wastes it, pretty goddamned selfish and greedy.
The sad part is that I bet you're proud of this misguided attitude toward your fellow man. I hope your child has the wisdom to see past your bigotry.
So now not wanting my increasing taxes wasted in a failing public school system ("just give us more money and this time it will work!") constitutes "bigotry." Wow. Dude, compulsory government redistribution of wealth is not a noble act. Robin Hood was not an altruist.
Just keep in mind that it is conservatives, not liberals, who give the most money to charity. We just think that the private sector and private choice does a better job of determining what is "fair." Which is why we conservatives like school vouchers.
While usually I am very skeptical of non-lawyers analyzing cases for me, I think this guy's logic is pretty strong here.
Well I am a lawyer, and you should be skeptical of them too. But read the article. My point was that the main argument for school suppression (like that loaded word?) of speech is:
In court papers, the plaintiffs' team argued that the suspension ran afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court's historic 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, which held that student speech may not be punished unless it caused a "substantial and material disruption at the school."
************
No, the question is whether a government official has the right to arbitratily punish a child for saying something the official didn't like. They shouldn't have that power. There are plenty of avenues for the injured principal to take. A libel/slander suit, or calling up the parent to tell them what happened.
Not sure if punishing a kid for calling the principal a pedophile is arbitrary, but you have obviously never dealt with modern parents as a K-12 teacher. Even as a college professor, I've encountered this helicopter parent syndrome, where the kid is always right. "Not my sweet little darling!"
After all, is it not the parents who filed this suit as guardians? Sounds like those parents are really looking to teach their kid respect for teachers and authority figures.
Hope they enjoy the alcohol and drugs [at private school]. I wouldn't want my kids to spend too much time around a bunch of bored rich kids with massive senses of entitlement.
Please. My dad was a salesman and my parents sacrificed driving new cars and vacations so I could go to a good private school. Entitlement? My parents reminded me daily that if I didn't keep my grades up I'd be down at the local loser public school. And the kids I went to school with thought I was rich because my dad had a Harley (which he won in a contest). I had to wake up at 5:40 AM to catch the public bus at 6:30 and get to school 25 miles away by 8:00 AM. Not exactly a limo. Rich kids my ass. Talk back to a priest in my day, and your smart ass would get knocked flat on your back.
And as for drugs, I assure you that carried the death penalty at my school. Of course, some parents do, in fact, send their children to expensive babysitting private schools for rich kids. But isn't your whole point that parents know best how to raise their kids?
fter all this time, I still hold a small, bitter place in my heart for that mental prison.
Agreed. This Onion piece resonated with me:
6-Year-Old Stares Down Bottomless Abyss Of Formal Schooling
As a conservative with strong libertarian leanings, I agree that compulsory education has some serious problems. But an uneducated populace is expensive as well. Promise me I won't have to pay more for those dumbass dropouts (prison, welfare, low wage redistribution, and other pathologies) than for their education, and I'd agree.
I'm not sure if increasing the current dropout rate would actually create a better society. Just as the idea of drug legalization has some merit, the actual practice in Nanny America might just lead to government-funded drug treatment, if not drug subsidies. I can see it now, Obamacare paying for medical marijuana with my tax dollars. But I digress. High school dropouts are expensive. If I could bury them with nuclear waste, great. But I doubt that would past constitutional muster either.
TV / Movies / Music: Top Recipients
Hmm, nearly $5 million donated to Obama. Do you think the entertainment industry is donating all that money to Obama because he promised to reform the DMCA as more consumer-friendly?
Contrary to submitter's logic, this case wasn't decided the way it was to protect someone's feelings.
In fact, all the cases cited in opposition to Judge Munley's decision make it clear that to maintain order in a school environment, the students just can't say "fuck you" to a teacher or principal. The on-campus/off-campus distinction might have made clear sense in Tinker (1969), but now that every student has Internet access and a Myspace page makes it a lot more possible to create a serious disruption off-campus that spills into the school.
I'm big on free speech, but I also know that kids need boundaries and guidance as to how to behave in civilization. Left to their own devices, it would be Lord of the Flies.
I went to parochial school and knew I'd be thrown out if I did something off campus that disrespected the school or administrators. That students should be able to embarrass, harass, or defame school officials merely because taxpayers fund their school seems curious. The idea that the Constitution even applies to this taxpayer-funded service should be questioned. So my tax dollars should fund a very expensive service for some ungrateful, disobedient little shit who wants to disrespect said service (and taxpayer)?
Public education should be a privilege, not a right. Then maybe more so-called "students" would appreciate it, and student success rates would be better.
Just another reason my kids will go to private school.
Better for the kid to learn now that "free speech" is (and always has been) a crock of shit in the U.S
I'd like to see some case law support for your ludicrous assertion. Comparatively speaking, the US has the strongest free speech protections on the planet. That doesn't mean no restrictions, as no right is absolute. But your hysterical response just does not jive with the facts.