If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News Insider)   Not News: A new bill would prevent sex offenders from working in schools. Fark: Teachers Unions have a problem with that   (foxnewsinsider.com) divider line 128
    More: Fail, education trade unions, sex offenders, rapists, unions  
•       •       •

4081 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 10:13 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-26 01:15:31 AM

Anne.Uumellmahaye: As the child of an abused spouse, I promise it's not that simple to just lie to the police and magically have someone charged with something. She was told a number of times that they had to see fresh blood, bruises, or him in the act of hitting her. Same goes for child abuse. At least where I'm from.

s2.dmcdn.net

"

I was thinking this afternoon, what the hell happened to the days where a guy does something like that to a girl, and a bunch of us guys get together and just go kick his farking ass."
 
2013-10-26 01:27:25 AM

Anne.Uumellmahaye: As the child of an abused spouse, I promise it's not that simple to just lie to the police and magically have someone charged with something. She was told a number of times that they had to see fresh blood, bruises, or him in the act of hitting her. Same goes for child abuse. At least where I'm from.


Yeah, I saw some farked up shiat when I was a kid as well, but that was the 70's and about as relative to today's issues as black and white television.
 
2013-10-26 01:36:10 AM

machoprogrammer: WhyKnot: All you libs and union apologists should cool your tits on blaming foxnews; the below quote is from an abcnews article...http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20650235&ref=https%3A%2F%2F www.google.com%2F

"The bill has run into objections from major teachers' unions like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. In letters to lawmakers, their criticisms included concerns that the measure might jeopardize workers' protections under union contracts.

In addition, the NEA wrote that criminal background checks "often have a huge, racially disparate impact" - a reference to critics' complaints that minorities make up a disproportionately high proportion of people convicted of crimes."

This is Fark, which has a higher percentage of Democrat fanboys than DemocraticUnderground.com. You should always expect FAUX NEWS!!!1!11111!111!!1!!


I wonder if you enjoy building your pathetic strawmen and whining as much as we enjoy laughing at you.  You certainly keep coming back to sob about how "biased" and "unfair" we liberals are.   You poor, poor baby.
 
2013-10-26 01:46:22 AM

grimlock1972: Vector R: grimlock1972: I would agree to this so long as what is considered a sex offender is adjusted:

not a sex offender:

teens having consensual sex
streakers
teens sexting each other.
Flashers so long as they do not flash kids .
teachers who have sex with student who are 16 and older so long as both are consenting.
peeing out of doors and getting caught.

Sex offenders level 1:
molestors ( non child)
date rapists ( non violent )
Flashers who flash kid on purpose bit do nothing else.

Sex offender level 2:

Molestors ( child)
full on rapists. ( no child rape and minimum of volience )
kiddie porn collectors
adults who have sex with kids under 15
Sex with an unconscious victim

Sex offender 3

those who rape kids
producers of child porn
violent rapists
kidnapping someone for use as a sex slave.

I think flashers of all sorts should be under level one, as unlike streaking, it's a deliberate act against an individual or group. Also, what's a non-violent date rapist? You've got the passed-out-drunk rapist on there, and the rapey rapists, so what sort of rapist counts as non-violent?

Otherwise I agree, that's a pretty fair and comprehensive list. No one level 1 and above should be working with kids or vulnerable populations (which is pretty much already covered as an exception to federal labor laws and discriminating against those with convictions).

non violent date rapist would be they fark their date while he or she is drugged with out beating the crap out of them.



So.... if I slip a date-rape drug into your drink and then have sex with you after the drug robs you of your control, I'm a level 1 sex offender, but if I stumble across you after you pass out drunk and have sex with you, then I'm a level 2 sex offender?  If I deliberately and without your knowledge drug you into the stupor which I then take advantage of, that's a LESSER crime than if you voluntarily drugged yourself into that state?
 
2013-10-26 01:59:16 AM
I must be an exception here. I have absolutely no problem if my teacher was a sexual predator/ molester:

blogs.browardpalmbeach.com

All Day....
 
2013-10-26 02:19:22 AM
Zero tolerance is never good.
 
2013-10-26 02:56:03 AM

Anne.Uumellmahaye: gerbilpox: Anne.Uumellmahaye: gerbilpox: [ABC News] The bill would forbid public schools to employ people convicted of crimes against children including pornography, or of felonies including murder, rape, spousal abuse or kidnapping.

So a bitter soon-to-be ex lies, and you're farked. Or you take the blame for defending yourself when he/she goes psycho, therefore you're certain to rape and kill teh snowflakes!

Darn it all! My response was in reply to this.

Hah! Too late! Yours was a non sequitur, and mine is uncontested! The intellectual high ground is mine!

Verily, you have triumphed. Next time contain your nerdgasm, you're staining the rug.


That rug really tied the room together :-(
 
2013-10-26 03:20:20 AM

jjorsett: hardinparamedic: Snapper Carr: Considering the loose criteria for being placed on the sex offender registry, I'm not surprised the union would have a problem with it.

But but union wants SEX OFFENDERS working with YOUR CHILDREN!

We report, YOU Decide....FOX NEWS! FAIR AND BALANCED!!!!!

It's remarkable how widespread Fox Derangement Syndrome is on Fark. It appears that the mere existence of a non-leftist news outlet is enough to trigger psychosis in those who are susceptible. Let's hope Obamacare can change that.


Gee, let's see why that is.

"Fair and Balanced" Fox News: says unions object to the law, doesn't ask any union members why, asserts it's because they must want child rapists in schools.
"Leftist" ABC News (linked above): Reports that unions object to the law violating worker protections - basically, objecting to what is basically a mindless zero-tolerance policy.

Which media source should I trust - one that asks groups why they take a given position, or one that just wildly speculates about their motives?
 
2013-10-26 03:30:22 AM
Maybe because "Sex Offender" = Guy who pissed on a wall outside a bar or girl who streaked a soccer game.

They should burn the damn registries and just make child molestation a hangin' offense. Problem solved.
 
2013-10-26 04:01:58 AM
Can anyone point to a specific case of some guy who got drunk and pissed in public and is now required to do the whole sex offender registry thing?

I'm really thinking it's just a myth.  If someone can prove it's not, please provide details.
 
2013-10-26 04:16:13 AM

Snapper Carr: Considering the loose criteria for being placed on the sex offender registry, I'm not surprised the union would have a problem with it.


If a politician decided to introduce a bill to create a registry for anyone who had ever been convicted of any sort of felony with a gun (including some forms of endangerment without any victims, which some jurisdictions have), that politician would rightly be run out on a rail. But sex offender registries are okay because children.
 
2013-10-26 04:19:29 AM
America - where we hate on teachers like they were rabid dogs, wish to deny them unions or decent pay or working conditions, and discuss their profession with the curled lip of scorn - and then biatch that our kids are stoopid and unedumacated.
 
2013-10-26 04:20:20 AM

GungFu: I must be an exception here. I have absolutely no problem if my teacher was a sexual predator/ molester:

[blogs.browardpalmbeach.com image 483x500]

All Day....


and of course the good thing is that since she is a teacher, if you do something wrong, she will make you do it all over again.
 
2013-10-26 04:44:48 AM
Union Thugs + Fox Nuisance = smells like bullschitt.
 
2013-10-26 04:55:18 AM

jjorsett: It's remarkable how widespread Fox Derangement Syndrome is on Fark.


Would you whine about Pravda Derangement Syndrome?
Granma Derangement Syndrome?
Sturmer Derangement Syndrome?

No?

THEN WHY DOES THE PLUTOCRAT PARTY'S PROPAGANDA OUTLET GET A PASS?

It appears that the mere existence of a non-leftist news outlet is enough to trigger psychosis in those who are susceptible. Let's hope Obamacare can change that.

Oh, of course.  You're one of those gullible idiots who believe Rush the Rash when he spews Liberal Media® this and Liberal Media® that.
 
2013-10-26 07:10:08 AM

ciberido: on violent date rapist would be they fark their date while he or she is drugged with out beating the crap out of them.


So.... if I slip a date-rape drug into your drink and then have sex with you after the drug robs you of your control, I'm a level 1 sex offender, but if I stumble across you after you pass out drunk and have sex with you, then I'm a level 2 sex offender?  If I deliberately and without your knowledge drug you into the stupor which I then take advantage of, that's a LESSER crime than if you voluntarily drugged yourself into that state?


Moreover, slipping a date-rape drug to someone and taking them somewhere to have sex with them is tantamount to exactly the same as planning and executing an intentional use of physical force to foment kidnapping for the purposes of sex. Period. Full stop.
 
2013-10-26 07:41:51 AM

Anne.Uumellmahaye: As the child of an abused spouse, I promise it's not that simple to just lie to the police and magically have someone charged with something. She was told a number of times that they had to see fresh blood, bruises, or him in the act of hitting her. Same goes for child abuse. At least where I'm from.


Things have swung so far in the opposite direction that many states now have mandatory arrest laws for domestic calls - if there's a call, even if it was just a neighbor over a screaming match, someone's going to jail and paying a pretty penny in fines.

It wasn't right that your family's problems were dismissed, mine was a pretty broken home too so I understand, but neither is modern zero-tolerance.
 
2013-10-26 08:26:18 AM

gfid: Can anyone point to a specific case of some guy who got drunk and pissed in public and is now required to do the whole sex offender registry thing?

I'm really thinking it's just a myth.  If someone can prove it's not, please provide details.



13 states require public urination to be put on the sex offender registry.
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10685/section/6#_ftnref109

According to this post, police don't enforce it in Georgia
http://downtownathens.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/public-urination-cons id ered-sex-offense-in-georgia-not-enforced-by-police/

This page had a couple of examples, but of course the links don't work
http://so lresearch.org/~SOLR/QnA.asp?group=20#Ref_SOexpos

So ultimately, I don't know if there are any actual examples, but the mechanisms are in place for it to happen.
 
2013-10-26 08:30:57 AM

zzrhardy: Anne.Uumellmahaye: As the child of an abused spouse, I promise it's not that simple to just lie to the police and magically have someone charged with something. She was told a number of times that they had to see fresh blood, bruises, or him in the act of hitting her. Same goes for child abuse. At least where I'm from.

Yeah, I saw some farked up shiat when I was a kid as well, but that was the 70's and about as relative to today's issues as black and white television.


It wasn't the 70s, it was the 90s. But point taken, Old Timer.
 
2013-10-26 08:45:28 AM

gblive: Teachers Union in Canada that opposes the firing of teachers convicted of sexually molesting of children


Interesting rumor. Do you have a source for that?
 
2013-10-26 08:54:15 AM
Good to see the sex offender apologists are here to defend the union at all costs.
 
2013-10-26 08:59:15 AM

tuna fingers: Anne.Uumellmahaye: Captain Dan: Why can't both parties just reform the sex offender list?  Give it three tiers, and ban Tier 3 offenders from teaching.

Tier 1 - 16 year old has sex with 16 year old
Tier 2 - flasher
Tier 3 - legitimate rapist

I don't want to get all "Think of the Children" on you, but I don't wa t a flasher teaching my kids. Some perv beast of a woman wearing skirts and no underoos to my kindergartener's circle time? No thank you.

I had the same thought, kind of.  You cropped out the streaking during a football game.  Streaking during a big time event is pretty hardcore.  That's odd. Flashing your tatas during Mardi Gras isn't a big deal.  Hell neither is working as an erotic dancer to finance your undergrad degree.  But streaking with the chance to be on tv is just a little over the top.


Yeah, because streakers always finish be raping the mascot.


Of all the people who committed crimes I'm concerned about, streakers worry me less than litterers.
 
2013-10-26 09:00:21 AM

Cataholic: Good to see the sex offender apologists are here to defend the union at all costs.


All costs...

Watch out for your corn hole.
 
2013-10-26 09:26:11 AM

worlddan: CivicMindedFive: That said, I have little doubt unions would still fight this no matter what because it's what government unions do.

Our teachers, why do they hate students?


They don't. They really, really like them.
 
2013-10-26 09:46:59 AM

Vangor: Further, simply because a group suggests there are issues with this legislation does not mean a group is to general opposite end, wanting to place a sex offender in every classroom


I see someone has never been in a gun thread.
 
2013-10-26 02:17:49 PM

Koalaesq: Captain Dan: Why can't both parties just reform the sex offender list?  Give it three tiers, and ban Tier 3 offenders from teaching.

Tier 1 - 16 year old has sex with 16 year old
Tier 2 - flasher
Tier 3 - legitimate rapist

Why should tier 1 be a tier at all?


Because in most states, that's statutory rape. Peeing in an alley behind a bar at 2 am will also get you onto the magic list.
 
2013-10-26 08:45:53 PM

maddogdelta: gblive: Teachers Union in Canada that opposes the firing of teachers convicted of sexually molesting of children

Interesting rumor. Do you have a source for that?


Go to Google and type in
canada teachers union sex offenders

Read all the interesting stories out of Toronto that make the news each week.  Here are the first couple links.

Predator teachers: Students ruined by teacher sex assaults

Teachers' Union Supports Female Teacher for Student Sex
 
2013-10-27 03:17:47 AM

HarleyMarlboro: gfid: Can anyone point to a specific case of some guy who got drunk and pissed in public and is now required to do the whole sex offender registry thing?

I'm really thinking it's just a myth.  If someone can prove it's not, please provide details.


13 states require public urination to be put on the sex offender registry.
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10685/section/6#_ftnref109

According to this post, police don't enforce it in Georgia
http://downtownathens.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/public-urination-cons id ered-sex-offense-in-georgia-not-enforced-by-police/

This page had a couple of examples, but of course the links don't work
http://so lresearch.org/~SOLR/QnA.asp?group=20#Ref_SOexpos

So ultimately, I don't know if there are any actual examples, but the mechanisms are in place for it to happen.


Thanks. It almost seems like one of those laws they put in place that they can use to screw someone over just in case they don't like them.

It seems to me that if you intentionally whipped your dick out in front of minors you should be busted for indecent exposure, but if you just meant to drunkenly take a whizz in an alley and someone happened to see you, that should just be a minor public urination offense ($50 fine, please don't do it again).

From what you linked and a lack of examples of them actually being used, it seems more like another weapon in the arsenal of law enforcement - the kind of weapon they might pull out if they can't get you on other charges they can get you on this,,,,,or maybe one of another few dozen laws that were never meant to be enforced except on special occasions.
 
Displayed 28 of 128 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report