UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
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?
AZ GOP/tea party quashes free speech
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
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.
No, I admitted that I was wrong and told you where my confusion was. Pretty sure that honesty is the opposite of lying.
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.
No. I simply don't want educational funding/resources to be used for such things.
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.
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
Well-Known Member
I KNEW YOU WOULD FINE THEM FOR DRIVING THEIR DISTRICT FURNISHED VEHICLE TO A PROTEST ON THEIR DAY OFF, 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.
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
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:
The bill is so broad and sweeping. It blows my mind you can't see that.
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
POSTED WITHOUT COMMENT.
Nevermind that little part it starts off with.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.
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.
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?
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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?
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS IN THE LAW, DUMMY.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
BECAUSE HE DOES SUPPORT THE BILL AND HE'S PULLING A GINWILLY.