Get a load of this crap.

"The ingrate principal was obviously anti-US, anti-military, anti-everything conservative since he was in the Freak State of Californyer. Just the southern part, the north and central part is fairly normal from what I read."

Thanks for the tell. "Obviously"

 

So you think the principal was justified in banning the graduate then?

 

If there is a good reason for a dress code then I don't see a problem with it. Making political statements with such a code is not IMO a good reason (on the flip side individuals may have a good reason to make political statements with them ... the difference between an organization particularly a public one making rules and an individual making a statement). When several girls in my high school class protested the rule against them wearing pants to school I thought that they were making a valid point and was impressed (when the school shortly there after changed the rule I was also favorably impressed). I don't see a good reason for not allowing a military uniform at a graduation ceremony.

 

No I think banning was OTT...a warning would have sufficed...or a reminder of protocol...or a private ceremony....anything but banning. Why? You gnnna bash me if I say yes?

 

Probably.

A high school graduation is a significant event in life, it signifies a point where they recognize their accomplishments and prepare for a (hopefully) productive life. There are a host of accepted conventions at graduation, including a costume. If a person has decided to serve their nation and wants to wear a uniform during graduation, then this is a good thing, a very good thing. If I were a school administrator, I'd make an exception to any costume policy for those opting for military service. Given that the student asked for permission from his high school counselor and it was approved, the fact he was barred the day of the ceremony by the principal is a disgrace.

The principal is clearly an activist with an anti-US bent, and his decision was deplorable.

 

Dear Liberty Community,
After reading AB 1463; 2009 STAT. Chapter 296 It has become clear that Harland Fletcher may have the right to wear his US Army Dress Uniform at his graduation and on behalf of the Liberty Union High School District I publically apologize to him and his family for this Incident.

No slight was meant to Harland nor to the US Army. In fact with a little prior notification, I’m sure that Principal Walsh and the site administration would have come to this conclusion before the ceremony. Principal Walsh and the District do support the armed forces as exemplified by his recognition of graduating seniors that have chosen the military for their post-graduate plans during the graduation ceremony.


Again I apologize to Harland for this unfortunate incident, and thank him for his service to our country.

Sincerely,

Eric Volta


Anti-US? "Clearly" you have mud in your eyes.

 

[Video] Harland J. Fletcher speaks after meeting with Liberty HS principal

He seem satisfied with the outcome. It would be interesting to see where this young man ends up. A decorated hero? Long odds on that. Regular GI that does his job? Probably. Barracks lawyer? Likely. 8 Ball? Again, long odds on that.

 

At this point any exchange with you is like explaining to a toddler why touching the stove is bad.

Actions speak louder than words. The apology is clearly formulaic as is the case when such a situation hits the media.

In the very first line his apology, the principal in question cites a legal statute as to why he "may" be allowed to wear his uniform. Despite it being his legal right to graduate wearing a uniform, the graduate still asked for permission from his guidance counselor. On the day of graduation, upon seeing the student in his uniform, Principal Volta decided to exclude him on the spot based upon whatever feelings he had at that time. This decision was made without referring to any legal statutes. Even when it was made clear to him that a soldier cannot cover his uniform for fear of a court martial, he decided to exclude him from the ceremony. Why would he do this? He obviously wasn't familiar with the legal or statutory requirements, so he must have been acting on his own emotions. Given what we know about how very regressive (anti-military, anti-US) people in that area are, especially people within the education system, it's a fair bet we know what his motivation are.

The fact that Fletcher responded to this situation in a mature and astute way does not diminish that original act. I've no idea why you are speculating about his future prospects, but hopefully he becomes a decent human being and is a productive member of society. I'd imagine he'll eventually start a family and have a few kids. If he does serve honorably, I'll bet none of his kids would have the stones to disgrace him by calling him a terrorist publicly.

 

You seem to think that whatever you "assume" is the truth. The opinions that you pull out of your, er, the air, are interesting in a sick way. Who do you "assume" shot JFK?

 

I'm speechless.

 

There's a difference between an assumption and an opinion based on logic and fact. Both can be wrong but the latter is much less likely to be so than the former. If you wish to debate the latter facts and logic that demonstrate how it might be wrong go a lot further than assertions based on your own assumptions and opinions especially if the latter are somewhat lacking in regards to the evidence presented to date.

 

When you see a stove with pots on it, No Touchy! They are hot and might burn you.

 

Sounds like a conservative approach. Assume all pots are hot just because they are on a stove. Like assuming that all terrorists are scumbags. Always. Everywhere. Every time. Call my dad a scumbag and here we are. You own it.

 

When communicating with children, imbeciles, or those with concrete-thick skulls, you tell them to stay away from all pots on a stove because they are generally too incapable to know better. You don't need to warn adults about a stove at all because they tend to know better.

And yes, by definition all terrorists are scumbags. So are all pedophiles. The word itself implies the person is beyond redemption, which is why so many people were shocked when you called your father a terrorist.

And for the record, I used the term "human garbage scumbag terrorist". These are accurate descriptors for a terrorist, which is why most rational people use the term sparingly and with reservation. I also said that all terrorists "should be wiped from the earth." Funny that you still focus on the term "scumbag", when I think "human garbage" is a far worse insult, not to mention my openly calling for their killing.

Don't project your disrespect & shame on me. Your father was clearly man who served his country honorably. I never insulted your father, you did.