c13

Being offended is a part of life. If a shirt of the country they're living in offends them, then they are going to have a real tough time once they enter the real world. This also shows how the current generation is being failed both by the education system and at home.

The American Flag represents the country where the school is located, the United States of America. The KKK Flag and the Nazi flag represent genocide and bigotry. The basis from the article for banning the flag is that it causes offense on one day. While all 3 of those flags are symbols, 2 of them are guaranteed to offend a majority of people who understand that flag all of the time. The purpose of wearing a KKK flag or a Nazi flag is purely to offend. The purpose of wearing a country's flag is almost always to express pride in the country.

Can you tell me any current country that uses the Nazi or the KKK flag?

While I'm still appalled by what the US Government did to the Native Americans, there is a difference between a few hundred nomadic tribes and a country with an established government.

The school needs to find a way to deter it outside of banning the wearing of a non-offensive shirt. Whether it is bringing in more security guards for that day or much harsher punishments for fights occurring as a result of the flag being worn. Maybe even threaten banning Cinco de Mayo activities should violence occur. I'm not sure what High Schools in California do for that day, but there were parties in my Spanish class throughout my 4 years in it.

So what if it's celebrated by Mexican-Americans? That shouldn't give them any sort of entitlement to that day regarding how other people dress. If the students decide to wear a shirt that is allowed every other day of the school year, it's not reasonable to ban it on that day alone. At most, warn students that it could provoke violence, but the shirt alone doesn't create the issue. The issue is created by people having entitlement. Students being forced to wear a uniform is almost exclusive to private schools in America, thus there is a form of choice of not going to that school (even though that is up to the parents). Short shorts and spaghetti strings can be argued that it causes a titillating distraction should a malfunction occur. A flag on a shirt doesn't cause titillation from a malfunction any more than a shirt that doesn't have a flag on it. Those short shorts and spaghetti strings aren't banned on only 1 day of the year, and they certainly don't express patriotic views. Why shouldn't they show their patriotism on that particular day? Why is it not okay for students to wear the US flag on their shirts on the Cinco de Mayo, but wearing a British flag on the 4th of July is okay? Both may be impolite ideas, but neither should be banned. And I consider intolerance to go both ways, unlike how the media portrays it to be exclusively held by one race. Why is some one not an intolerant ass hole for trying to have their country's event be celebrated in a separate country and forcing people to change the way they dress for that day to respect them?

The problem is that another country was set before the home country, and that a constitutional right was suppressed. A flag of a home country shouldn't cause offense. and the punishment should be on the people who provoke the physical attack. I would also know where you interpreted it as "fuck you and your holiday, I'm American." No where in the foxnews article or the San Jose Mercury News article does it say that the wearers of the flag did anything but wear a shirt with a flag on it.

Now, now, that's racist to say Americans shouldn't completely change their culture to satisfy a minority of immigrants. /sarcasm

http://www.lcpdfr.com/page/tutorials/index.action/_/vehicle-modification-tutorial/how-to-import-skins-onto-a-vehicle-r28

MODERATOR NOTICE Moved to LCPDFR Media

MODERATOR NOTICE Moved to GTA IV Discussion

He means a development part, not a vehicle. MODERATOR NOTICE Moved to Development Suggestions and Requests

I see a massive amount of stupidity on both sides, and quite frankly, it's no wonder I consider humanity screwed. From one side calling people "sheep" while being too stupid to string together a coherent sentence, while the other side has some calling for locking all people who dare to suggest that rich and powerful people might conspire to become more rich and powerful. For starters, here's something that can't be disputed, taken directly from Cecil Rhode's first will, calling for a fund (could have later turned into the Rhodes Foundation) for the purpose for the establishment of a secret society dedicated to making Britain the controller of all the world. And for the people saying the illuminati or other societies are too well known to prosper, you're displaying the one of the exact actions that would make such a society so successful. Things can easily hide in plain sight, depending on how much they are reported. One of the best things about the internet is that it is much harder to hide things. One example is the Bilderberg Group. You would think that a meeting of 150 the world's most powerful media moguls, technological geniuses, politicians, royalty and top advisers (a felony for US politicians to attend in secret under the Logan Act) would be major news in the celebrity worshiping culture of today. Yet, until recently, the media was in total denial about such a group, with only a few articles recently coming out, mostly about security there (1,2,3). Again, in today's culture, why would so many famous people meeting together be mostly ignored? But the primary reason why any such society is so successful is because of the polarization effect in the world today. The average "researcher" repeats shit they heard from Alex Jones and believes being a raging lunatic who can't be rational is the only way to "wake people up", and the average "sheep" is turned away from the raging lunatics, towards the hand of the all loving government who would never look to harm anyone.

Your cousin was a small child. There are other factors at play, like less sense of direction, less survival skills, less chance of fighting off a wild animal and the big threat that would mobilize police more being abduction. And it's not only the driving skill you think you have that matters. There are other people on the roads too. Chances are EXTREMELY high that you and others your age don't know what to look out for with other drivers. Being told and subconsciously knowing are separate things If you can't even take the time to come up with a comparison that isn't a police mod in a violent video game, I am even less likely to support giving you the power to drive dangerously.

The odds of that are extremely slim, and SAR parties are when a location isn't for sure. While time is of the essence, SAR operations generally happen with no clue where some one specifically is. A detailed plan with grid references will do more than ambling through the woods, and that planning takes more time than a response. Given that the minors wouldn't be essential to the planning, they aren't required to be the first ones in the area, diminishing the usefulness of giving them emergency equipment that encourages them to drive fast. And honestly, what person/politician/agency in their right mind would think giving people who just got their driver's licenses an excuse to drive fast is a good idea? Driving has a massive amount to do with experience. My state requires 50 hours on the road before getting a license. While a 16 year old may have 55 hours on the road with an EVOC course, that's absolutely nothing compared to the cops who have had 10 years working a job where they spend 75%+ of their time on the road in a patrol car. Even the applicants who are only 21 years old tend to have hundreds of more hours driving than some one who just got a license. Again, giving new drivers the excuse to drive fast just isn't a good idea, and for the purpose it would be used for, is not essential, and would probably create much more of a public safety risk due to inexperience.