What a bunch of garbage, since when is it not okay to be a patriotic American?

Administrators at a California high school sent five students home on Wednesday after they refused to remove their American flag T-shirts and bandannas -- garments the school officials deemed "incendiary" on Cinco de Mayo.

The five teens were sitting at a table outside Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif., on Wednesday morning when Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez asked two of them to remove their American flag bandannas, the Morgan Hill Times reported. The boys told the newspaper they complied, but were asked to accompany Rodriguez to the principal's office.

The five students -- Daniel Galli, Austin Carvalho, Matt Dariano, Dominic Maciel and Clayton Howard -- were then told they must turn their T-shirts inside-out or be sent home, though it would not be considered a suspension. Rodriguez told the students he did not want any fights to break out between Mexican-American students celebrating their heritage and those wearing American flags.

"They said we were starting a fight," Dariano told the newspaper. "We were fuel to the fire."

The boys told Rodriguez and Principal Nick Boden that turning their shirts inside-out was disrespectful, so their parents decided to take them home, the newspaper reports.

You liberals love to put yourself up on a higher pedestal than your opponents intelligently. It's too bad that in the eyes of God, you are fools. He says that 'the wisdom of the wise man is foolishness in His eyes'. Those who think they are so smart, reallly don't get it at all. IMO, Liberals have skewed morals.

You liberals love to put yourself up on a higher pedestal than your opponents intelligently. It's too bad that in the eyes of God, you are fools. He says that 'the wisdom of the wise man is foolishness in His eyes'. Those who think they are so smart, reallly don't get it at all. IMO, Liberals have skewed morals.

Let's see how many things you covered in this post: First, a false claim that liberals put themselves on a higher pedestal than their opponents intellectually. Where has that been posted?

But I will say that I am glad brains are back in the White House.

Next, you start your bible quoting. It really does get tiresome when you turn every post into something about the bible. Everyone knows that you can find a bible quote to support or refute almost any position.

Finally, you attack the morals of liberals, which I find amusing in light of all the sex scandals of the neocons, especially lately. :laugh:

Conservative/Neocon/Republican Definition of Abstinence Only Education (ala Mark Souder):

Don't have sex with anyone you are not married to...until AFTER you're married. :thumbup:

You liberals love to put yourself up on a higher pedestal than your opponents intelligently. It's too bad that in the eyes of God, you are fools. He says that 'the wisdom of the wise man is foolishness in His eyes'. Those who think they are so smart, reallly don't get it at all. IMO, Liberals have skewed morals.

----------------------------------------------------------

Ack! I feel like we're in grade school:

I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say to me sticks to you! :laugh:

Come on Patty you can do better than this!

You know how you and the rest of the libs blast anything quoted by fox news? The dailykos is pretty much the biggest left wing hack, bs, super liberal, no news site on the internet. So I'll stick with the CBS poll for now. Thanks

You interpreted my original observation to be about the teabaggers so you need to watch this video to see how much they know about what they are protesting. Their ignorance is stunning.

EVERYONE ELSE ON HERE SHOULD WATCH THIS. And before you start bashing it as some liberal "gotcha" video - I think the interviewer was just asking some simple, fair questions and making some clarifications. No one seemed to object to his questions.

Regarding the Tea Bag video:

In other posts I've said I'm scared of conservative extremists. These are the great thinkers that are threatening to overthrow my country! Be very scared people -- they're stockpiling weapons as we speak. I think I hear banjos in the background.

Im at work and haven't watched the video yet. But are these people similar to the ones who voted for Obama because of his pro life stance and because Palin was going to be his VP(see Howard stern videos of Obama supporters from '08)? There are idiots in every crowd.

Im at work and haven't watched the video yet. But are these people similar to the ones who voted for Obama because of his pro life stance and because Palin was going to be his VP(see Howard stern videos of Obama supporters from '08)? There are idiots in every crowd.

No, these are just your average teabaggers, most with signs and they are asked about their signs or what they are protesting. They love glenn beck. They hate Obama.

And BTW - what kind of job do you have that allows for so much free internet time and posting? Just curious.

Im at work and haven't watched the video yet. But are these people similar to the ones who voted for Obama because of his pro life stance and because Palin was going to be his VP(see Howard stern videos of Obama supporters from '08)? There are idiots in every crowd.

Well, here are some things said by people who should be considered more "mainstream" in your view and these views are accepted by elected republicans by virtue of not being denounced. How smart are they?:

Newt Gingrich and Rand Paul Jump the Shark

Here we go again. A prominent Republican likens President Obama to Adolf Hitler, and the Republican leadership remains embarrassingly, shockingly silent.

According to former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, the President's "secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did."

This was not a slip of the tongue. Gingrich has stood by his offensive, morally outrageous comparison on at least two national television programs. And the reaction from House Minority leader John Boehner or his Senate counterpart, Mitch McConnell, or the ever garrulous Dick and Liz Cheney? So far, not even a murmur of disapproval.

Last year, it was Rush Limbaugh who inflamed the Republican base with his irresponsible analogies. Among Limbaugh's gems: "Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook;" "Obama is asking citizens to rat each other out like Hitler did;" the president "is sending out his brownshirts to head up opposition to genuine American citizens who want no part of what Barack Obama stands for and is trying to stuff down our throats;" and "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate."

At the same time, Rand Paul, the new darling of the Republican right, the newly minted Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky, proudly tells us that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he apparently believes that privately owned restaurants should be allowed to discriminate against African Americans, or, presumably any other minority group. And tellingly, there has been no public outrage from the GOP establishment.

Joe Scarborough, a former conservative Republican Member of Congress, has roundly denounced both Gingrich and Paul on his Morning Joe show on MSNBC, but where are the hapless Michael Steele, and Indiana Representative Mike Pence, and Mitt Romney? Once again, they allow the vitriol to be spewed out in the hope that it will sufficiently poison the body politic in their favor.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R. Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has no problem accusing Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, falsely as it happens, of having "violated the law" when, while Dean at Harvard Law School, she continued the practice of restricting military recruitment in light of the US armed forces' discrimination against openly gay members. But Senator Sessions has not, so far at least, addressed either Newt Gingrich's or Rand Paul's extremist rhetoric. Why not?

Colin Powell explained on CNN that his problem with the GOP was that when Limbaugh "says things that I consider to be completely outrageous, and I respond to it, I would like to see other members of the party do likewise. But they don't." The same appears to be true when it comes to Gingrich or Paul.

Where is House Republican Whip Eric Cantor? Does he agree with Paul that a hotel or restaurant should be allowed to bar me or him because we are Jewish? Does he agree with Gingrich's comparison of President Obama to Hitler and Stalin, two notorious anti-Semites? And if he disagrees with either or both of these Republican luminaries, why hasn't he spoken up?

As we approach both the Kagan confirmation hearings and the mid-term Congressional elections, we must keep the broader political context in mind. Political disagreement is legitimate. Fomenting fear and hatred, or wanting to turn the clock back to the bad old days of Jim Crow and segregated lunch counters is not.

huffington post

John Stossell had a pretty insightful view of the whole Rand Paul debacle. It was on the Megan Kelly show on fox news and then again I believe on FBN. What he says makes decent sense to me.

John Stossell had a pretty insightful view of the whole Rand Paul debacle. It was on the Megan Kelly show on fox news and then again I believe on FBN. What he says makes decent sense to me.

John Stossell? Fox news? Yeah, like they're "fair and balanced":lol: . I have no doubt the right wing is going to try to backpedal, soft-pedal, repackage and then try to sell what Rand has said but it's still the same message: He believes private businesses have the right to discriminate. Period.

KY-Sen: Rand Paul closes the case on himself

by Jed Lewison

Thu May 20, 2010 at 02:15:22 PM PDT

I think it's time we let Rand Paul speak for himself, in his own words:

A recent Daily News editorial supported the Federal Fair Housing Act. At first glance, who could object to preventing discrimination in housing? Most citizens would agree that it is wrong to deny taxpayer-financed, “public” housing to anyone based on the color of their skin or the number of children in the household.

But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and Breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn’t want noisy children? Absolutely not.

Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.

SNIP

A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.

Paul wrote those words in a 2002 letter to the Bowling Green Daily News in protest of an editorial the paper had written in favor of the Fair Housing Act

dailykos

So, if at the end of a tiring day driving, a black couple comes across a bed & breakfast to lodge for the night, Rand Paul is okay with the owners having a sign at their door: No Blacks Allowed.

Like I said, take a good look at him and his positions: He is the face of the tea party movement.

But by all means, find ways to defend him, if you agree with his positions.

John Stossell had a pretty insightful view of the whole Rand Paul debacle. It was on the Megan Kelly show on fox news and then again I believe on FBN. What he says makes decent sense to me.

I just saw a video in which Stossell says he agrees with Rand Paul that a private business can discriminate in any way they choose. I'm glad I was sitting down when I heard that. What a shock!

Let's do the math - here's some simple equations:

Immigrants are taking our jobs = I don't like those darned hispanics

Immigrants are committing alot of crime = I don't like those darned hispanics

Government shouldn't make laws preventing private businesses from serving certain people = I don't like those darned blacks and hispanics

I'm against redistribution of wealth = I don't like those darned blacks and hispanics

Obama is a socialist = I don't like those darned blacks and hispanics

Obama isn't an American = I don't like those darned blacks

I want my country back = I don't like those darned blacks and hispanics

Homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights = God hates fags

Let's do the math - here's some simple equations:

Immigrants are taking our jobs = I don't like those darned hispanics

Immigrants are committing alot of crime = I don't like those darned hispanics

Government shouldn't make laws preventing private businesses from serving certain people = I don't like those darned blacks and hispanics

I'm against redistribution of wealth = I don't like those darned blacks and hispanics or poor

Obama is a socialist = I don't like those darned blacks and hispanics

Obama isn't an American = I don't like those darned blacks

I want my country back = I don't like those darned blacks and hispanics

Homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights = God hates fags

This hits the target right on.

Here's further clarification about Rand Paul and his views of adaptations for disabled:

Rand Paul: Let's say you have a local office and you have a two story office and one of your workers is handicapped. Should you not be allowed maybe to offer them an office on the first floor, or should you be forced to put in a hundred thousand dollar elevator?

Sounds reasonable, right? In fact, it's so reasonable that the ADA contains an exception for that very situation.

Elevators are not required in:

(a) private facilities that are less than three stories or that have less than 3000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider, or another type of facility as determined by the Attorney General; or

(

public facilities that are less than three stories and that are not open to the general public if the story above or below the accessible ground floor houses no more than five persons and is less than 500 square feet. Examples may include, but are not limited to, drawbridge towers and boat traffic towers, lock and dam control stations, and train dispatching towers.

So Rand Paul opposes a law because he believes it imposes a mandate that it does not in fact impose. What an idiot.

dailykos