Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sob
That wouldn't have been particularly attention-getting at MY high school. In fact, in some areas, it draws the WRONG kind of attention.
Anybody else know of a person at their high school who might have made good grades, but was a social outcast?
Perhaps you'd like to re-post some of your "expert facts" on the military and treason for us. They might get moved to the humor section, though.
Still waiting for that US Code reference you've been too busy to find in your law texts, BTW. (The one where you said freedom of speech doesn't cover unpopular speech.)
|
sob,
as much as I suspect people are sick of our tit-for-tat posts, I'm compelled to respond to these points because I think you have misrepresented my position on them.
1) you stated that she was attention seeking because she probably couldn't
accomplish anything.
Once I pointed out that she was actually very accomplished, you want to now recast your statement as being about her social abilities. Then you follow it up with a remark about how academic achievement didn't hold positive value in your school. Hopefully that was just an off-the-cuff remark and your school environment wasn't as dumbed down as you seem to be suggesting.
My school environment certainly wasn't like that. Throughout my education, whether in primary school, college, or the university I now attend, I have found academic achievement to be held in high regard among people who are trying to learn.
2) I never stated any expert opinion on anything regarding the military. You claimed to know all the high-level officials and to know the official opinion of military families.
When asked how I could point out that you couldn't speak for all of them, I followed up with the claim that I am a military family member and your statements about me (as one of the families you purported to be representing) were inaccurate. You then declined to set up a meeting (that you offered) between me and those high-level officials who were speaking for me and other military families.
I was speaking in my capacity as a military family member. If you understood it to be an expert opinion of anything other than my and my family's own opinion, you shouldn't have.
3) You end with a claim that I refuse to post any case law about the legality of voicing unpopular opinions.
My point did not hinge on whether the position was unpopular or not.
What I responded to was the speculation by one member of the community that he was legally entitled to walk into an NAACP function in full KKK garb.
I pointed out that the courts have repeatedly ruled that freedom of expression is properly limited in place and context. It hinges on safety, as well as the rights of others to peaceably assemble, among other factors. I then suggested that anyone interested in whether what I said was accurate should call an attorney who deals with that type of law and post the attorneys response. Evidently, neither you nor the person I addressed that post to has bothered to do that.
Why should I take the time to construct a legal argument I doubt you would bother to take the time to understand? I suspect you would just comb through such a post and try to find minor errors in it. I doubt you are unable to understand it, you just prefer to distort my statements in an attempt to make liberals look silly--hopefully someday you will stop.
EDIT:
The Emancipation Proclamation exempted certain states for political and economic reasons. Obviously we wouldn't have wanted Maryland to succeed and take our Capitol with it.
Washington State, Oregon, and California (I don't know about any others, I wasn't talking about them) had already made it illegal for people to own slaves by the 1840's.
If you are talking about whether George Washington was a traitor to England, then yes, I don't know anyone (other than you) who would refute that position. Whether that is something laudible or not to his ex-countrymen, I don't know or care, I never was a citizen of England.