BigDog, please explain to me how I “piss” on the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights, in this case, since you would be hard pressed to claim that I have threatened the separation of powers).
I know full well that the first amendment only prevents what you call “government reprisal,” but I also know that East Carolina is a public university, and thus an extension of the government and not in the “private sector.” So, maybe it is you who have no idea what you are talking about.
[-2] October 5, 2016 at 4:48pm
Funny, don’t you folks call yourselves Tea Party-ers?
No doubt these students may be disciplined for, as you would say, not doing their job. That’s the university’s business. I find it funny that so many of you are eager to encourage retribution. Shouldn’t you folks be supporting their right to peaceful protest? I guess not, since all of a sudden the sanctity of a marching band is more important to all of you.
October 5, 2016 at 4:41pm
And on what grounds are you claiming that they do not sincerely believe their cause? How do you know that they don’t volunteer in their communities? You are making unwarranted assumptions about people.
[-4] October 5, 2016 at 1:11pm
Someone has to provide some adult supervision here.
[-3] October 5, 2016 at 1:11pm
“While I respect the “Individual’s” right to protest peacefully, however when that individual chooses to join a team, especially a team that represents a larger organization, they must know that they must not perform those individual rights while performing that team function.”
Haha, yes. Because all of a sudden the operations of the marching band are fundamental to the national interest. How dare they violate the sacred trust of the band!
[-3] October 5, 2016 at 1:09pm
“PP; If you are wearing a uniform or otherwise representing an organization then you represent them.”
Funny, because I bet if those individuals were wearing crosses and praying, then you (or at least many here) would be talking about their right to individual expression.
[-7] October 5, 2016 at 1:04pm
“The problem is when one does it when one has a task to do (marching and playing), then one is (IMHO) forcing their opinion on everyone else.”
Haha. You folks complain if people march in the street, or block traffic, or make any noise, or post signs, or do just about anything to voice their opinions. Now, all of a sudden, marching is sacred and must be defended at all costs. Not marching is forcing your opinion on someone else… hahahahah.
[-4] October 5, 2016 at 1:02pm
I’m nowhere suggesting that actions do not have consequences. Those consequences are, of course, for the university to decide. My objection was the implication that these students don’t love their country or that they should leave it. My point was simply that if you want to strictly police opinion and pressure young people into participating in nationalistic ceremonies, then perhaps you’re the one who would be more comfortable in a totalitarian police state where you will never have to deal with a protest or difference of opinion.
I, for one, won’t be calling for the heads of students who decided to act on their consciences and engage in legitimate, peaceful protest.
[-5] October 5, 2016 at 8:56am
And you speak for the taxpayers?
I’m a taxpayer myself, and I’d say that engaging with an issue, following their conscience and acting on a cause that is important to them is exactly the kind of thing they should be learning in college. It’s hard to see how this is “anti-societal,” since these kids are organized and participating in a nationwide social debate. It’s also hard to see how a purge of university faculty would help the land of the free that the anthem is supposed to represent.
[-8] October 5, 2016 at 8:53am
There you are Sleazy. I was wondering where you were hiding. I thought you were going to teach me why I’m all wrong about the 3/5ths Compromise.
Funny, you see the other side as fascist, and yet you are on the side of punishing these young people for following their consciences and not participating in a nationalist (and some would say militaristic) ritual oath-taking.
Admittedly, it’s hard to argue against you, since all you offer is bluster, hot air, and empty generalizations.
[-8] October 5, 2016 at 8:49am
So, in a free country you would force everyone to participate in a nationalistic ritual or risk reprisal? You would insist that every individual put aside their conscience and blindly follow their leaders? And that’s OK with you?
[-9] October 5, 2016 at 8:47am
Yes, conform or be cast out! That’s the Conservative creed.
[-14] October 5, 2016 at 8:47am
Yes, because crowds are always right.
[-10] October 5, 2016 at 8:46am
So, a group of college students put their academic careers on the line to exercise their free speech rights and protest for a cause they believe in…
And you call them fat.
Who is being more patriotic here? Who is the adult here?
[-4] October 5, 2016 at 8:44am
Yeah! Why don’t these kids prove that they are not puppets by conforming to exactly what they are supposed to do instead of making choices for themselves!
[-9] October 5, 2016 at 8:41am
Obviously they don’t hate what the national anthem is supposed to stand for, since they are exercising their first amendment right to free speech.
Maybe if you are so keen on controlling others’ speech and limited their right to protest, maybe YOU should move to North Korea, Cuba or China.
 October 3, 2016 at 8:30pm
What say you Sleazy? Down for the count?
[-1] October 3, 2016 at 4:00pm
So, your final assertion, that the 3/5ths Compromise protected blacks, begs the question: from what? It did not protect them by preventing the expansion of slavery, or of fugitive slave laws, nor did it hasten the end of slavery.
[-2] October 3, 2016 at 3:58pm
Now, if you are suggesting that the the 3/5ths Compromise prevented Northern states from re-introducing slavery, then that would be a stretch. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, several Northern states, including New York and New Jersey, were still in the process of abolishing slavery, while others, like Massachusetts had a longstanding judicial precedent that made slavery essentially against the state Constitution. While only a small number of Northerners were abolitionists, and many were happy to allow slavery to continue in the South, there was no serious effort to reintroduce slavery simply because there was little economic incentive, since the North did not grow the kind of labor intensive crops like tobacco, rice and cotton that benefited most from slave labor.
[-2] October 3, 2016 at 3:55pm
Sleazy, let’s review the “history” you have provided to correct what you argue to be my revisionist Marxist liberal viewpoint. Here are your statements:
1) “The south wanted blacks counted as a whole person so they could gain more political power in congress.”
This is true, as I have pointed out.
2) “The north instituted the 3/5 law to negate that effect to ensure freedom for blacks and prevent re-entry of slavery legislation.”
No, the North did not “institute” a law. It was a compromise, without which the drafting of the Constitution could not proceed. Anti-slavery Northerners did not want slaves held as property counted at all because naturally that would inflate the Slave States’ political power. The South held firm until the North was forced to compromise.
It’s unclear as to what you mean by “prevent the re-entry of slavery legislation,” because the disproportionate representation of Slave States in Congress (and thus also the electoral college) certainly did not prevent the passage of the fugitive slave acts of 1793 or of 1850, not did it prevent the expansion of slavery in the West.