Bong Hits For Jesus

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Rammstein, Mar 20, 2007.

  1. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
  2. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    That sign makes no sense. It obviously is referring somehow to using a bong, probably to smoke pot. Jesus is in there for whatever reason.

    Who cares? I don't. What was that lady the other day on TV standing behind one of the talking heads on TV that wore an Impeach Bush shirt or whatever that she exposed once the cameras rolled. It happens all the time. If the sign was disruptive, maybe he could have had it taken down, but I can't see him being suspended for it.

    I hope the Supreme Court considers this one carefully. Our students are already being indoctrinated into the new-age liberal philosophy... they deserve every right an adult has. It's not like you turn 18 and then suddenly you get all of the rights in the Constitution. I'm sure there should be a limit.. you shouldn't put signs up at school that say "Rape a teacher" or something... I wonder how they'll decide it? I'm thoroughly confused but I know I don't give a crap about that sign. It's nonsense.
     

  3. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday New Member

    633
    0
    0
    The Principal messed up by not having all of the students on school property. If she had done this it would not be an issue. The sign could have been simply removed, over and done with. By not having the kids on school property and only having them partially supervised opened her up to a ton of legalties.
     
  4. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    I'm in the process of reading the oral arguments now and so far Scalia disappoints me.
     
  5. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,288
    60
    48
    How can students be suspended for what a banner that wasn't on school property?
     
  6. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    That is how we get to this present point.
    Read the oral arguments here
     
  7. Doc Holliday

    Doc Holliday New Member

    633
    0
    0
    If she would have had all of the students on school property she could have removed the sign and this would be a non-issue.

    The sign btw is inappropriate for a school setting.
     
  8. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Scalia does this every now and then. I am encouraged by Alito, however.
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
    That was a dude in drag . . .

    I can't believe you thought that thing was female. :lol:
     
  10. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Yeah, I didn't go into it thinking that Alito would be as for the speech as it appears he is.
     
  11. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Good thing for Frederick he was across the street. :D
     
  12. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    Yeah, I also think the principal screwed the pooch on this one.

    It'll be interesting to see what the SCOTUS comes up with. Wadda ya tink? Nine opinions?
     
  13. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    I am pretty sure they are going to side with Frederick


    Here are my predictions:
    Kennedy
    Ginsberg
    Souter
    Breyer
    Alito

    Dissent:
    Scalia
    Roberts
    Stevens
     
  14. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    Revised outcome:
    Kennedy
    Ginsberg
    Souter
    Breyer
    Alito
    Roberts

    Dissent:
    Scalia
    Stevens
     
  15. Taler

    Taler New Member

    1,089
    0
    0
    Why a revision Ramm? Something new, or a complete reading?
     
  16. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    I think the court will rule for the kid, but I think his sign was wrong.

    After mulling this over a bit, and based on information previously learned on this forum, I think the sign should have said:


    "Gong Hits for Jesus"



    in honor of one of our own.

    Don't ask me. Ask MP. It's his call to explain or to let that part of his life remain undiscovered, undisclosed and undiscussed...
     
  17. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    I finally read the whole thing.
     
  18. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,420
    2
    38
    Whoa! MP. Were you that guy on the Gong Show? The one with the bag over his head. I seem to recall he had similar tastes in ties.


    oppps I went & said the T word... :oops:
     
  19. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,387
    394
    83
  20. M249

    M249 New Member

    3,033
    0
    0
    The sign did not disrupt any student's learning experience, and the student didn't advocate violating any other person's rights to life, liberty or property. Some drugs are okay--alcohol--but some are not--THC--because some guys and gals in suits say so. Some guy makes some corny sign that he finds amusing that has a non-sensical phrase on it that could be interpreted to be advocating the use of one of the arbitrarily determined "bad" drugs, and gets suspended.

    Being the radical that I am, I think watering down the 1st Amendment in the name of the "War on Drugs" is stupid. I support this kids right to put up the stupid "Bong hits for Jesus" sign, because I support the 1A with just as much fervor as I do the 2A.

    If the FF had wanted only political speech to be protected, they would have said as much. His speech did not violate the rights of others, and therefore should be protected... despite what a bunch of Puritans in black robes said in the early 1800's. These same black robed folks said that "Separate but Equal" was hunky-dory, and we know how that worked out.

    Citizen M249 says, "Bad call, ump."

    ----------------
    The decision didn't bother me as much as the supporting arguments:

    Why? So, Joe Smith, at 18 can can vote, and enlist in the military, but somehow, doesn't have the "coextensive rights" of an 18 year-old graduate or drop-out because he's in a government school setting?

    A pro-2A article could provide a "legitimate pedagogical concern" by violating the schools zero-tolerance policy on weapons, and thus be edited from the school paper.

    It's my understanding, at that time, you had a good chance of being married and working your farm at 16, and you weren't likely to be in a public school. See below:
    Iran Cassim Mohsenin
    History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Winter, 1983), pp. 491-498

    NOTE: I don't smoke marijuana, but I don't think politicians ought to be able to tell a grown man what he can and can't put into his body. Parents, on the other hand, can beat their child within an inch of their lives if they catch 'em smoking weed. Tell them there is a time and a place for that sort of thing, and it's called college.