AZ GOP/tea party quashes free speech

Glaucoma said:
So you are a lawyer?

Just so I'm clear, was it when I gave a specific example of language I thought could be misinterpreted or was it some other time that you came up with this position for me?

C'mon dude.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but I grew up in a household with a lawyer, my cousins are lawyers, my aunts and uncles are lawyers, and I have a lawyer on retainer. I've been around court rooms, I've talked law at family gatherings for years.

That point is moot, however what is relevant is that you have determined, admitting in prior posts, that at least one of the clauses could be left for interpretation. So you've left a hole in your argument, for me to expand upon. I am going with my original contention that the entire bill is rife with language that can and will be interpreted to suit the needs of those who choose to oppress.
 
see4 said:
I am not a lawyer, but I grew up in a household with a lawyer, my cousins are lawyers, my aunts and uncles are lawyers, and I have a lawyer on retainer. I've been around court rooms, I've talked law at family gatherings for years.

That point is moot, however what is relevant is that you have determined, admitting in prior posts, that at least one of the clauses could be left for interpretation. So you've left a hole in your argument, for me to expand upon. I am going with my original contention that the entire bill is rife with language that can and will be interpreted to suit the needs of those who choose to oppress.
Click to expand...

Uhhh.. ok.

I gave specifics. You guys point at the entire mass and pretend it can say whatever you want, probably because the very next line negates your false claims.
 
Glaucoma said:
Uhhh.. ok.

I gave specifics. You guys point at the entire mass and pretend it can say whatever you want, probably because the very next line negates your false claims.
Click to expand...

We are both entitled to our own opinions. We just so happen to disagree, and that's ok. Historically these kinds of laws have shown me to be "more" right. But maybe it will be different this time around.
 
see4 said:
We are both entitled to our own opinions. We just so happen to disagree, and that's ok. Historically these kinds of laws have shown me to be "more" right. But maybe it will be different this time around.
Click to expand...

yes, perhaps this time the tea party and GOP will be on the right side of history.

the chance is less than miniscule, but not a priori impossible.
 
see4 said:
We are both entitled to our own opinions.
Click to expand...

The only difference is that I can point to specifics while you cannot.

As a cousin of a lawyer, does conjecture matter in court? Is this how you would seriously defend your views in front of a judge? You have failed to show a single scrap of evidence as a foundation for any of your claims.

Let's review. You said this would open the door for religion? The only way god is making his way into schools using this bill is if he runs for public office and they hold a debate in the gym.*

Saying teachers can't advocate for elections is clearly false. The bill specifically says that school resources are not to be used for such things. This includes staff that is on the clock, performing their duties as civil servants. It does not in any way what so ever say that they cannot advocate policies on their own time.

So.. where is the basis for your argument?

Edit: * fun fact: in the 70's, an Arizona lawyer sued god on behalf of his secretary for negligence in his power to control the weather when a lightning bolt struck her home.

The judge ruled in his favor when the defendant failed to appear in court.
 
1y8j2s.jpg
 
Glaucoma said:
The only difference is that I can point to specifics while you cannot.
As a cousin of a lawyer, does conjecture matter in court? Is this how you would seriously defend your views in front of a judge? You have failed to show a single scrap of evidence as a foundation for any of your claims.
Click to expand...

Condescending prick.

Glaucoma said:
Let's review. You said this would open the door for religion? The only way god is making his way into schools using this bill is if he runs for public office and they hold a debate in the gym.*
Click to expand...

God has already made its way into schools. Just because you can't go look that shit up yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Creationism must be taught along side science. Not sure why you have such a hard time understanding that. It's either because you are trolling or because you are stubborn and dense.

Glaucoma said:
Saying teachers can't advocate for elections is clearly false. The bill specifically says that school resources are not to be used for such things. This includes staff that is on the clock, performing their duties as civil servants. It does not in any way what so ever say that they cannot advocate policies on their own time.
Click to expand...

We aren't debating what teachers do on their own time. I have said that repeatedly and yet you choose to ignore that point and use it as some sort of inane tactic. I will say it again for at least the 4th time. This bill, which is written by Republicans, targeting teachers and school staff, who by-in-large are Democrats, attempts to intimidate said teachers and staff, thus limiting free speech. AND, because the clauses in this bill are open and broad in definition, authoritative bodies will use this bill to fire or sue teachers for doing something they might not agree with.

I am sorry you don't see it that way. And I'm glad you are one to take laws so very strictly, but the fact of the matter is, laws when not specific enough, like this one, are left open for interpretation. Period.

Now if you don't mind, I'd like to end our conversation here, we seem to be going in circles. I keep telling you my thoughts on this and giving you reasons why, and you continually ignore them and say I haven't proven anything. And now you've sunk down to being condescending. So I will just end it here.

Have a wonderful rest of your day.
 
Glaucoma said:
The only difference is that I can point to specifics while you cannot.

As a cousin of a lawyer, does conjecture matter in court? Is this how you would seriously defend your views in front of a judge? You have failed to show a single scrap of evidence as a foundation for any of your claims.

Let's review. You said this would open the door for religion? The only way god is making his way into schools using this bill is if he runs for public office and they hold a debate in the gym.*

Saying teachers can't advocate for elections is clearly false. The bill specifically says that school resources are not to be used for such things. This includes staff that is on the clock, performing their duties as civil servants. It does not in any way what so ever say that they cannot advocate policies on their own time.

So.. where is the basis for your argument?

Edit: * fun fact: in the 70's, an Arizona lawyer sued god on behalf of his secretary for negligence in his power to control the weather when a lightning bolt struck her home.

The judge ruled in his favor when the defendant failed to appear in court.
Click to expand...


Let me take this on from a different angle here, maybe your thick skull can grasp this concept.

This bill, if passed, will make it illegal for teachers and school employees to protest. So if ANY legislation is passed thereafter this bill, teachers and school employees can be arrested and likely fined for doing so.

Is that something you can sink your teeth into? Or are you still ok with silencing teachers?
 
see4 said:
Condescending prick.
Click to expand...

Say what now?

see4 said:
I take it you don't hold a law degree, nor have been in a court room? You seem to think law is never left for interpretation. A juror must weigh evidence presented to them against what the law specifically states, but defense and prosecution and judges can interpret it anyway they like, unless there is precedence.
Click to expand...

For the record, my experience interpreting legalese comes from years of referring to the CFRs for answers. Not my cousin or dinner conversations, but actual use and implementation.

God has already made its way into schools. Just because you can't go look that shit up yourself doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Creationism must be taught along side science. Not sure why you have such a hard time understanding that. It's either because you are trolling or because you are stubborn and dense.
Click to expand...

But you said that this bill would help god make its way into schools. Key words: this bill.



We aren't debating what teachers do on their own time. I have said that repeatedly and yet you choose to ignore that point and use it as some sort of inane tactic. I will say it again for at least the 4th time. This bill, which is written by Republicans, targeting teachers and school staff, who by-in-large are Democrats, attempts to intimidate said teachers and staff, thus limiting free speech. AND, because the clauses in this bill are open and broad in definition, authoritative bodies will use this bill to fire or sue teachers for doing something they might not agree with.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of our debate, for sure. If we aren't debating what teachers do on their own time with their own resources, then your argument boils down to saying it's ok for schools to use educational resources to promote partisan causes. My argument against that is that those resources should be used on the children.

Now if you don't mind, I'd like to end our conversation here, we seem to be going in circles. I keep telling you my thoughts on this and giving you reasons why, and you continually ignore them and say I haven't proven anything. And now you've sunk down to being condescending. So I will just end it here.

Have a wonderful rest of your day.
Click to expand...

Take it easy.
 
Also @Glaucoma - If you read the entire bill, a fine of $5,000 is a carried penalty for offenders. The quotes the OP provided are not the entire bill, which is probably why you are confused about the facts.

There is a wonderful search engine that will help you look for information. If you kindly point your browser to www.google.com you can use their service to look up a wealth of information.
 
Glaucoma said:
Say what now?
Click to expand...

Please don't play dumb. Own up to it. You were being condescending.

Glaucoma said:
But you said that this bill would help god make its way into schools. Key words: this bill.
Click to expand...

No, I said that this bill ALONG with the recent legislation pertaining to creationism forces teachers to teach creationism along side science as if they were equally factual. Don't spin my words.

Glaucoma said:
This is the crux of our debate, for sure. If we aren't debating what teachers do on their own time with their own resources, then your argument boils down to saying it's ok for schools to use educational resources to promote partisan causes. My argument against that is that those resources should be used on the children.
Click to expand...

I am not debating what teachers do on their own time. Neither is this bill. The only person who has brought up what teachers do on their own time is you.

If you see my latest comments, I've changed my direction with you, as you seem to not see the slippery slope idea.
 
see4 said:
Also @Glaucoma - If you read the entire bill, a fine of $5,000 is a carried penalty for offenders. The quotes the OP provided are not the entire bill, which is probably why you are confused about the facts.

There is a wonderful search engine that will help you look for information. If you kindly point your browser to www.google.com you can use their service to look up a wealth of information.
Click to expand...

Dude, I posted a link directly to the most recent copy of the bill. Edit: I am the only one here actually quoting the bill. Seriously?

see4 said:
Please don't play dumb. Own up to it. You were being condescending.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. You can be condescending but if I decide to give some back to you, suddenly there is a problem? Maybe you shouldn't have opened that door to begin with.

No, I said that this bill ALONG with the recent legislation pertaining to creationism forces teachers to teach creationism along side science as if they were equally factual. Don't spin my words.
Click to expand...

Oh right. This was the pure conjecture part. My bad.

I am not debating what teachers do on their own time. Neither is this bill. The only person who has brought up what teachers do on their own time is you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we just talked about that. Remember how I said that this means your stance is that it's ok to use educational resources to support partisan politics? Let me try again, then. Your stance would mean Rob Roy can tell his assistant to go make copies in the teachers lounge for him to pass out concerning his take on some upcoming legislation.

If you see my latest comments, I've changed my direction with you, as you seem to not see the slippery slope idea.
Click to expand...

But it's ok for partisan politics to be in our educational system? Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.
 
UncleBuck said:
WOULD TEACHERS BE FINED FOR ATTENDING A PROTEST ON A SICK DAY USING PTO?






EDIT - FORGOT CAPS LOCK
Click to expand...

Maybe if they used a district vehicle to get there. Outside of that, I don't see how. They are on their own time. Isn't TO in PTO 'time off'?

Nice try.
 
Glaucoma said:
Maybe if they used a district vehicle to get there. Outside of that, I don't see how. They are on their own time. Isn't TO in PTO 'time off'?

Nice try.
Click to expand...

WHAT IF THEIR VEHICLE IS FURNISHED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT? CAN THEY BE FINED FOR DRIVING TO BUY BUMPER STICKERS?

WHAT WOULD A GOOD LITTLE FASCIST LIKE YOU DO TO REIGN IN THESE UNTERMENSCHEN?
 
UncleBuck said:
WHAT IF THEIR VEHICLE IS FURNISHED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT? CAN THEY BE FINED FOR DRIVING TO BUY BUMPER STICKERS?

WHAT WOULD A GOOD LITTLE FASCIST LIKE YOU DO TO REIGN IN THESE UNTERMENSCHEN?
Click to expand...

If their vehicle was given to them for personal use, then why would there be a problem?

Ohhh, I get it. You are trying to 'make me upset' so you can have that extra edge when you fire up the next rape video. Got your panties on?
 
Glaucoma said:
If their vehicle was given to them for personal use, then why would there be a problem?
Click to expand...

IT IS PAID FOR BY TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!!!

WHAT IF ONE TEACHER EMAILS ANOTHER TEACHER WHILE THEY ARE WAITING FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO COMPLETE A TEST OR GET BACK FROM RECESS? SHOULD WE FINE THEM $5000 FOR DOING THAT TOO, MUSSOLINI?
 
Glaucoma said:
Let me get this straight. You can be condescending but if I decide to give some back to you, suddenly there is a problem? Maybe you shouldn't have opened that door to begin with.
Click to expand...

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

Glaucoma said:
Oh right. This was the pure conjecture part. My bad.
Click to expand...

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

Glaucoma said:
Yeah, we just talked about that. Remember how I said that this means your stance is that it's ok to use educational resources to support partisan politics? Let me try again, then. Your stance would mean Rob Roy can tell his assistant to go make copies in the teachers lounge for him to pass out concerning his take on some upcoming legislation.

But it's ok for partisan politics to be in our educational system? Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.
Click to expand...

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

So you are ok with legislation making protest illegal?

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.



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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top