Figleaf

It's your inability to thread together anything like a coherent argument that makes this such a farce. Give up, man up, and admit it -- the school authorities are out of line on this one.

Clinton only appointed two SC justices: Ginsberg and Breyer.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off...omination&meta= See also: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=dominionist&meta=

You guys never heard of Google, I guess. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=dominionist&meta=

Isn't that the whole theme of the Left Behind stories? It's certainly not true of all Christians, but there are some who subscribe to that theology. Do you have some refutation of any of that you intend to tender here? Please, get to your argument.

1. Closer than neighbors? 2. Why does that matter? It's incoherent and incomprehensible. That's how. Well, except we've established they had no such 'authority', so they weren't exercising it, they were making it up through abuse of their power in school. Nonsense. Please give examples of this wide-ranging abuse and busybodyness of schools. You make them sound like Party Cadres or Morality Police! By alert teachers calling in the PROPER AUTHORITIES.

Well what would you call getting rid of a few billion people. The left has track record of around a 100 million in the last century of mostly death by government. "'The' Left"?? Can anyone explain what this B.Max individual is talking about?

Well lets assume it's the for now since there is evidence to point the finger in that direction. So move on to the question. I don't see it. What evidence supports this contention in respect of 'the' 'left'?

I'd give that up if I were you. Since that term is creeping into discussions all over the place, you'll soon find you can't believe anything. I thought that was pretty much why anyone wrote anything.

Your analogy is false, Saying so doesn't make it so. You'd need to outline what's wrong with it if you wanted to be convincing. Your analogy is flawed. You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the relevant relationships. Student's don't work for teachers. Also, it is unclear what authority you invoked to fire person a, or what the nature of your relationship and employer was. Depending on this information, you may have behaved wrongfully. Another faulty analogy, I'm afraid. First off, being traded is not a punishment. Further, talking to the press may be covered by employment conditions. No, all in all, my analogy (the one you had no answer for) more precisely captures this situation. And it demonstrates that I'm correct. Good try, but no cigars, M.

Found this while surfing ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic It certainly seems to describe many of the subjects we discuss here, as well as the tone taken by some participants. It goes on to say ... It gives some examples. No doubt we can think of many more that have come and gone here. What strikes me is that so often these moral panics can be the subject of deliberate manipulation. I'm always surprised how little recognition the manipulation itself draws. Here's another source: http://www.mediaknowall.com/violence/moralpanicnotes.html

"'the' left"?

It's too bad people needed to flog the dead horse of their biases rather than analyze things with greater perspective. This poll turns out to have been a waste of time.

I too needed a 'none of the above' option.

Right. The reputations of teachers is a school matter. The resepect given to teachers is a school matter. Allowing students to participate in extracurricular school outtings is a school matter. We agree. It seems not. The reputations of teachers may be of concern to the school, but that concern does absolutely ZIP to extend their authority. The fact remains, these students were on their own time, and not using school property or premises. The school is abusing its power by punishing them for a matter outside it's authority. I'll refer you again to my earlier analogy: Person A is a veteran on a pension. His neighbor is Person B, who works in the Veterans Affairs department. Person A has a dog who pees on Person B's bushes. Person B cuts off Person A's pension until he promises to curb his dog. Did Person B act correctly? Clearly not.

I'm not sure if you qualify for a show stopping majority, but I have to assume that the school and the board disagree with you since the 5 are still not going to Montreal. And short of a court order forcing the school, that ain't changing. Their persistence in wrongdoing doesn't make it right. In fact, persistence in wrongdoing kind of makes it even 'wronger'.

I don't think even you need to be told this, but just in case... No, your daughter's school has ACCESS TO the internet.

So, let's blame England and France for Hitler, is that the message here? Yes, the west should have sacrificed millions more of our people to 'liberate' populations who wouldn't stand up for themselves. This is offensive. If the west 'appeased' communism, isn't it even more true to point out that the populations of communist countries acquiesced? And would have served in the armies that the west would have had to fight to end communism. I'd be really interested in seeing any law, policy, or agreement whereby European governments are 'countenancing' suicide bombings. Failing that, we can just chalk this comment up as an absurd lie. OMG! He said 'Chamberlain'!!! Unleash the Tory Attack Dogs!!! There's only one thing to do. Beat them to the punch! He doesn't merely 'risk' it. He has brought it about.

Right. So it's not 'in school' and the school's authority does not extend to it. The internet is not is school? Right. The internet is not in school. We have already established that the jurisdictional concern is not 'phoney'. Raising upstanding young citizens does not require and is not assisted by bureaucrats who demonstrate a kneejerk tendency to exceed their proper authority. Having read your response (to which further specific responses are below) it seems I didn't make my query clear enough. I should have said, what are you trying to accomplish by hopelessly arguing about what IS when your concern is what SHOULD be? Yep. They deserve better than having people abuse their authority to pursue personal issues against them. Everyone with authority in our society has limits on that authority. For good reasons, schools' authority is limited to school matters. I see no good reason for schools' authority being extended beyond that limit. I don't think what was done in these cases merits criminal sanctions. If they DID merit criminal sanctions I would definitely want criminal sanctions pursued. No, they don't have 'every right' to do any such thing. Schools are government agencies and as such excerise of their discretionary powers must be done fairly and in accordance with their legal mandate and objects. I don't know what gives you the rather incredible notion that schools are sovereign entities, but it's wrong. Coming from you, that's hilarious. But anyway, if you was me, I'd kill myself out of generosity for the world.

To weed out both Mulroney and Trudeau, whose memorys are both too high it some minds for people to be fully objective.

And then remember the Sponsorship Scandal of the Liberals? At $250 million we're talking REAL money. Heh. If you want to talk REAL money, how much was the AirBus deal worth?

Right. Only a professionally manipulated poll can be trusted!

There's a lot of ways to intepret Blair's legacy. What's yours?

We should split up most provinces, and amend the constitution to eradicate the existing provinces. They're nothing but trouble. Split Montreal Island off on it's own. Same with Vancouver Island. Definitely split Cape Breton from NS. Make them all smaller. Split Ontario into four and Alberta into two. Oh, and split PEI's Eastern Kings county from Southern Kings county.

Typical tory sleaze. Remember the Minister under Mulphoney who had a private limo drive her thousands of KM throughout France on her vacation?