AZ GOP/tea party quashes free speech

[UncleBuck]

http://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/trolls-just-want-to-have-fun.pdf

Mental illness is serious. Seek help.

WHAT IF TWO TEACHERS ARE MONITORING KIDS AT RECESS AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT TEA PARTY AND GOP FASCISM AMONGST THEMSELVES AT THAT TIME? SHOULD WE FINE THEM BOTH $5000, MUSSOLINI?

 

[Glaucoma]

Point out where I was being condescending to you prior to your dick'ish comments.

I did, twice. Remember when you pretended to know everything about laws because of your cousin and uncle, and then falsely attributed the position that I don't think things can be misinterpreted? I remember.

Ok, I'm glad we settled that you lie. Moving on.

No, I admitted that I was wrong and told you where my confusion was. Pretty sure that honesty is the opposite of lying.

You may need to look up the term cognitive dissonance to better understand its meaning.

You think I'm advocating a slippery slope by not wanting partisan politics in education when the very act of allowing partisan politics into education opens a HUGE slippery slope.

Yep, pretty sure I'm clear on what it means.

So you are ok with legislation making protest illegal?

No. I simply don't want educational funding/resources to be used for such things.

Let me try using some of you logic. Where exactly in the bill does it say Rob Roy would call his assistants to make copies? Nowhere does it say that. Therefore your entire argument is bullshit.

Where did I say that the bill says he would do any of that? Cite it. I can tell you right now that you are going to have trouble, so just go ahead and admit you are wrong here. What I said was that your stance would allow him to do such things without a care in the world. Surely you understand the difference.

Let's simplify this debate.

Do you think it is ok for Republicans, in a Republican conservative state, to pass legislation that makes protesting illegal for teachers and school staff, fining them up to $5,000 for doing so?

I think using educational resources to protest should not be allowed. This includes staff who are actively performing their duties as civil servants. Remember, we aren't talking about what they do on their own time, with their own resources, right? You were very clear on that previously.

 

[UncleBuck]

I simply don't want educational funding/resources to be used for such things.

I KNEW YOU WOULD FINE THEM FOR DRIVING THEIR DISTRICT FURNISHED VEHICLE TO A PROTEST ON THEIR DAY OFF, MUSSOLINI.

 

[Glaucoma]

WHAT IF TWO TEACHERS ARE MONITORING KIDS AT RECESS AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT TEA PARTY AND GOP FASCISM AMONGST THEMSELVES AT THAT TIME? SHOULD WE FINE THEM BOTH $5000, MUSSOLINI?

Specifically mentioned in the bill: As long as one employee isn't telling the other one what to vote for, no problem.

This is really too easy. Just read the bill for yourself.

 

[Glaucoma]

I KNEW YOU WOULD FINE THEM FOR DRIVING THEIR DISTRICT FURNISHED VEHICLE TO A PROTEST ON THEIR DAY OFF, MUSSOLINI.

Except I said that if the vehicle was given to them for personal use, there is no problem.

So yeah.. I pretty much said that. Except the exact opposite.

 

[UncleBuck]

Specifically mentioned in the bill: As long as one employee isn't telling the other one what to vote for, no problem.

This is really too easy. Just read the bill for yourself.

SO YOU WOULD FINE A TEACHER WHO, WHILE MONITORING CHILDREN AT RECESS ALONGSIDE ANOTHER TEACHER, SAID TO VOTE AGAINST THE TEA PARTY GUY BECAUSE HE WANTED TO CUT X NUMBER OF TEACHER JOBS IN THEIR DISTRICT?

TOTALLY NOT FASCIST AT ALL, MUSSOLINI.

 

[UncleBuck]

Except I said that if the vehicle was given to them for personal use, there is no problem.

So yeah.. I pretty much said that. Except the exact opposite.

YOU ALSO SAID YOU DON'T WANT EDUCATIONAL FUNDING OR RESOURCES USED FOR ANY PARTISAN REASON.

THE VEHICLE IS AN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE, THE PROTEST IS A PARTISAN CAUSE.

ARE YOU THE NEW GINWILLY, MUSSOLINI?

 

[see4]

I think using educational resources to protest should not be allowed. This includes staff who are actively performing their duties as civil servants. Remember, we aren't talking about what they do on their own time, with their own resources, right? You were very clear on that previously.

A. A person acting on behalf of a school district or a person who aids another person acting on behalf of a school district shall not spend or use school district or charter school resources, including the use or expenditure of monies, accounts, credit, facilities, vehicles, postage, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, web pages, personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or any other thing of value of the school district or charter school, for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections. Notwithstanding this section, a school district may distribute informational reports on a proposed budget override election as provided in section 15‑481, subsections B and C or informational reports on a proposed bond election as provided in section 15‑491, subsection D if those informational reports present factual information in a neutral manner, except for those arguments presented as prescribed in section 15-481, subsection B, paragraph 9. Nothing in this section precludes a school district from reporting on official actions of the governing board.

That says, teachers and staff are not allowed to protest on school property.

I suppose you're right, teachers should only protest in the privacy of their own home.

D. Employees of a school district or charter school may not use the authority of their positions to influence the vote or political activities of any subordinate employee.

This clause further perpetuates the silencing of teachers and staff.

Interesting that you find this bill to be ok, but it was probably postponed on a Tuesday vote because the majority of the Republican legislation thought that this bill was horrifying. As azcentral quotes:

Some Republicans are horrified, which is probably why a final vote on the bill was delayed on Tuesday.

The bill is so broad and sweeping. It blows my mind you can't see that.

 

[see4]

I apologize if I am sounding harsh @Glaucoma - notwithstanding a few condescending remarks you've been pretty civil. I'm trying to remain the same.

 

[Glaucoma]

YOU ALSO SAID YOU DON'T WANT EDUCATIONAL FUNDING OR RESOURCES USED FOR ANY PARTISAN REASON.

THE VEHICLE IS AN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE, THE PROTEST IS A PARTISAN CAUSE.

ARE YOU THE NEW GINWILLY, MUSSOLINI?

Watch how I spin this right back at you:

So you think when the district pays a school employee, that money is still considered a usable resource when it's in the employees possession?

Keep on doin the lords work!

 

[UncleBuck]

Watch how I spin this right back at you:

So you think when the district pays a school employee, that money is still considered a usable resource when it's in the employees possession?

Keep on doin the lords work!

A. A person acting on behalf of a school district or a person who aids another person acting on behalf of a school district shall not spend or use school district or charter school resources, including the use or expenditure of monies, accounts, credit, facilities, vehicles, postage, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, web pages, personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or any other thing of value of the school district or charter school, for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections.



HERP DEE DER DER HERP DEE DERP DEE DER

 

[UncleBuck]

Watch how I spin this

POSTED WITHOUT COMMENT.

 

[Glaucoma]

That says, teachers and staff are not allowed to protest on school property.

I suppose you're right, teachers should only protest in the privacy of their own home.

Nevermind that little part it starts off with.

A person acting on behalf of a school district or a person who aids another person acting on behalf of a school district

"on behalf" means while you are performing your job. Why do you keep trying to steer this away from the very thing you said you didn't have any debate over? What they do on their own time is up to them. If they feel that the only place they can protest comfortably is at school, then fine. There are provisions to allow it as long as they pay a rental fee and do it when no other government function is taking place.

This clause further perpetuates the silencing of teachers and staff.

reposted: D. Employees of a school district or charter school may not use the authority of their positions to influence the vote or political activities of any subordinate employee.

It silences those who would use their power of authority to intimidate subordinates. Why didn't your bolding include "of any subordinate employee"? I don't mind bolding, but don't go overboard on cherry picking. "of any subordinate employee" is a very important part of the context. How is this anything but anti-intimidation language?

Interesting that you find this bill to be ok, but it was probably postponed on a Tuesday vote because the majority of the Republican legislation thought that this bill was horrifying. As azcentral quotes:


The bill is so broad and sweeping. It blows my mind you can't see that.

LOL, I know, right? I find it interesting that I can't find issues with it either. I straight up asked in my first post, what am I missing? Because from what I read in the bill itself.. I don't see a foundation for any of the oppositions claims.

I don't believe we need this law. I don't believe we will need it in the future. I think they got better shit to do. I'm pretty sure both sides of the alley do shit like this just so they have ammunition to deal with later. We'll shelve X if you approve Y. Yanno.

 

[Glaucoma]

A. A person acting on behalf of a school district or a person who aids another person acting on behalf of a school district shall not spend or use school district or charter school resources, including the use or expenditure of monies, accounts, credit, facilities, vehicles, postage, telecommunications, computer hardware and software, web pages, personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or any other thing of value of the school district or charter school, for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections.

HERP DEE DER DER HERP DEE DERP DEE DER

What if they spend monies?? You totally missed that. You know, once the district pays their employees, that money is still district money, right?

 

[UncleBuck]

What if they spend monies?? You totally missed that. You know, once the district pays their employees, that money is still district money, right?

GINWILLY WOULD SURE ARGUE SO.

GUESS YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO ARGUE WHAT'S RIGHT IN THE BILL THOUGH. FIGURES.

 

[Glaucoma]

GINWILLY WOULD SURE ARGUE SO.

GUESS YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO ARGUE WHAT'S RIGHT IN THE BILL THOUGH. FIGURES.

No, you were just too stupid to understand my rebuttal.

Hint: If the vehicle was given to them for personal use, it's ok to use it for personal reasons. Just like their paychecks.

 

[see4]

LOL, I know, right? I find it interesting that I can't find issues with it either. I straight up asked in my first post, what am I missing? Because from what I read in the bill itself.. I don't see a foundation for any of the oppositions claims.

It was postponed by Republicans. The Republican wrote it did not get enough Republican support yet for the bill to go to vote. If it had, it surely would have been rejected. NOT the opposition, but the very same political party that the bill originated from. Goes to show the legitimacy of the bill, huh?

I don't believe we need this law. I don't believe we will need it in the future. I think they got better shit to do. I'm pretty sure both sides of the alley do shit like this just so they have ammunition to deal with later. We'll shelve X if you approve Y. Yanno.

You concede that this bill is "ammunition". In that I we agree.
You also concede that you would not want to see this bill passed.

With those two things being true, why exactly are we arguing?

 

[see4]

No, you were just too stupid to understand my rebuttal.

Hint: If the vehicle was given to them for personal use, it's ok to use it for personal reasons. Just like their paychecks.

A corporate car, which is given for personal use, is also still considered corporate property and the person using it, at some capacity uses it for work related purposes.

This bill says, if teacher X decides to protest, no matter if on school property or at a public park, they better be sure not to use that vehicle or they are in violation of the law. Not that a school district would EVER give a teacher a car. But superintendents might, and some superintendents are disgusted with the legislation in Arizona as it pertains to education.

 

[UncleBuck]

If the vehicle was given to them for personal use, it's ok to use it for personal reasons.

THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS IN THE LAW, DUMMY.

 

[UncleBuck]

You concede that this bill is "ammunition". In that I we agree.
You also concede that you would not want to see this bill passed.

With those two things being true, why exactly are we arguing?

BECAUSE HE DOES SUPPORT THE BILL AND HE'S PULLING A GINWILLY.