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 41
    More: Fail, education trade unions, sex offenders, rapists, unions  
•       •       •

4090 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2013 at 10:13 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-25 10:15:43 PM
17 votes:
Yes, because pissing in a bush while drunk in college should disqualify you for teaching kids or having a meaningful rest of your life
2013-10-25 10:17:04 PM
11 votes:
Considering the loose criteria for being placed on the sex offender registry, I'm not surprised the union would have a problem with it.
2013-10-25 10:19:36 PM
3 votes:

anwserman: Yes, because pissing in a bush while drunk in college should disqualify you for teaching kids or having a meaningful rest of your life


The only sex offender I've ever known earned his scarlet letter for that.  Outside of that, though, I thought it was beyond difficult to get a teaching position if you had a conviction of any sort, including that time you received a misdemeanor for drinking underage in college and still managed to use proper restroom facilities with a closed and locked door.
2013-10-26 12:43:21 AM
2 votes:

highwayrun: This is a solution to a problem no one has. If you're a convicted sex offender, you're not getting hired by any school district anyway. Not for any position from assistant janitor to principal. I'm here to tell you, as a former classroom teacher, they fingerprint you and run your criminal background before a final offer is made, so even before Day One the school district is sure you have no record. This is pure Fox fear pandering.


Because fox wrote the law....that is pure derp on your part to blame foxnews.
2013-10-26 12:20:18 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-10-25 10:33:54 PM
2 votes:

MrHappyRotter: I was planning to visit this thread and make a comment or two.  But then I reviewed the handful of comments in here and anything and everything I was going to say has already been said.  I wasn't going to go all snark, I wasn't going to dial up the mockery.  In light of this, I probably could go one of those two routes, and I could do it quite successfully.  I might even get a few people to click the smart or funny buttons.  Likely, at some point, I might even get a reply or two.

One of them might be from some poor schmuck whose sarcasmometer is on the fritz.  There's always a few of them in every thread.  No matter how obvious I make my comments, they latch on to the imaginary boogey man they want to believe is behind the comment and simply cannot resist the temptation to reply.

The other(s) are in on the joke.  They know the deal, they play along.  Either they congratulate me on my post or expound upon it.  Maybe they'll be funnier, kudos to you Farker who can take a comment and reply to it with outstanding wit and humor.  You deserve all the attention you get and more.  Maybe it'll be a half hearted reply, acknowledging that you see what I did there or some variation on one of the other half thousand popular memes rolling around on Fark these days.

Regardless of it all, I'll be sure to hit the smart and funny link on your post.  People don't use those enough, so hopefully if you even bother to check, you'd see your name, your post, in the funny and smart lists for having spent the time to reply to me.  Even if your response was due to your inability to read between the lines, or your joke fell flat, I still love you.

In closing, I want to return to the subject matter at hand, rather than my psuedo intellectual meta spiel.  I'm sure this is all somehow Obama's fault.  He's probably in conspiracy with the Teahadists to criminalize education for rejecting the Muslim faith and creationism.  The net effect is that kids will no longer be smart enough to figure out ...


Garth, that's a haiku!
2013-10-25 10:32:12 PM
2 votes:
I was planning to visit this thread and make a comment or two.  But then I reviewed the handful of comments in here and anything and everything I was going to say has already been said.  I wasn't going to go all snark, I wasn't going to dial up the mockery.  In light of this, I probably could go one of those two routes, and I could do it quite successfully.  I might even get a few people to click the smart or funny buttons.  Likely, at some point, I might even get a reply or two.

One of them might be from some poor schmuck whose sarcasmometer is on the fritz.  There's always a few of them in every thread.  No matter how obvious I make my comments, they latch on to the imaginary boogey man they want to believe is behind the comment and simply cannot resist the temptation to reply.

The other(s) are in on the joke.  They know the deal, they play along.  Either they congratulate me on my post or expound upon it.  Maybe they'll be funnier, kudos to you Farker who can take a comment and reply to it with outstanding wit and humor.  You deserve all the attention you get and more.  Maybe it'll be a half hearted reply, acknowledging that you see what I did there or some variation on one of the other half thousand popular memes rolling around on Fark these days.

Regardless of it all, I'll be sure to hit the smart and funny link on your post.  People don't use those enough, so hopefully if you even bother to check, you'd see your name, your post, in the funny and smart lists for having spent the time to reply to me.  Even if your response was due to your inability to read between the lines, or your joke fell flat, I still love you.

In closing, I want to return to the subject matter at hand, rather than my psuedo intellectual meta spiel.  I'm sure this is all somehow Obama's fault.  He's probably in conspiracy with the Teahadists to criminalize education for rejecting the Muslim faith and creationism.  The net effect is that kids will no longer be smart enough to figure out what 15% of their meal costs, so they'll all start using the tip line on their restaurant receipts to leave passive aggressive racial, sexist and homophobic remarks and then drive off on their zero emission bicycles while they run red lights and block off traffic as they head off to the hospital to have their first born son circumcised, twice, even though it won't matter since the kid is going to grow up to kill a bunch of folks in a mass shooting that wasn't thwarted because the only people left that are still legally able to teach aren't allowed to carry assault rifles to protect the children.  The end.
2013-10-25 10:30:56 PM
2 votes:

Koalaesq: The judge I clerked for was the Megans Law judge for our county. My favorite story was about a 19 year old who slept with a 17-year-old promising her that if she slept with him she would be in the Crips gang. Problem was he was not really in the Crips. When she found out she pressed charges.


Execute them both.
2013-10-25 10:22:43 PM
2 votes:
The sex-offender label needs a serious overhaul to exclude things like peeing in a bush and some statutory rape where the age differences are very close together.  That said, I have little doubt unions would still fight this no matter what because it's what government unions do.
2013-10-25 10:21:14 PM
2 votes:

Sugarbombs: The only sex offender I've ever known earned his scarlet letter for that.


I know two who got thrown on the registry in Tennessee for statutory rape, both as 18 year olds who were in a relationship with a 16-17 year old, one in the 1970s, one in the 1980s.
2013-10-25 10:18:38 PM
2 votes:

anwserman: Yes, because pissing in a bush while drunk in college should disqualify you for teaching kids or having a meaningful rest of your life


Done in one. I'm sure if the bill only covered convicted rapists the union would not be objecting. But most of these bills are "you once looked at someone funny one time so no teaching for you. "
2013-10-26 08:54:15 AM
1 votes:
Good to see the sex offender apologists are here to defend the union at all costs.
2013-10-26 07:10:08 AM
1 votes:

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 04:01:58 AM
1 votes:
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 03:20:20 AM
1 votes:

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 01:12:01 AM
1 votes:

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.


The entire point of statutory rape is that, even though the kids say they consent, they are legally unable to provide consent.  They're kids and can't comprehend the full level of what they are consenting with.  If you think they can, change statutory laws.

/ I do think kids close in age shouldn't be charged when they think they consented, if for no reason than that neither of them can consent, so really, neither of them can have 'raped' the other.
// Adults know better.
2013-10-26 12:45:28 AM
1 votes:

MrHappyRotter: I was planning to visit this thread and make a comment or two.  But then I reviewed the handful of comments in here and anything and everything I was going to say has already been said.  I wasn't going to go all snark, I wasn't going to dial up the mockery.  In light of this, I probably could go one of those two routes, and I could do it quite successfully.  I might even get a few people to click the smart or funny buttons.  Likely, at some point, I might even get a reply or two.

One of them might be from some poor schmuck whose sarcasmometer is on the fritz.  There's always a few of them in every thread.  No matter how obvious I make my comments, they latch on to the imaginary boogey man they want to believe is behind the comment and simply cannot resist the temptation to reply.

The other(s) are in on the joke.  They know the deal, they play along.  Either they congratulate me on my post or expound upon it.  Maybe they'll be funnier, kudos to you Farker who can take a comment and reply to it with outstanding wit and humor.  You deserve all the attention you get and more.  Maybe it'll be a half hearted reply, acknowledging that you see what I did there or some variation on one of the other half thousand popular memes rolling around on Fark these days.

Regardless of it all, I'll be sure to hit the smart and funny link on your post.  People don't use those enough, so hopefully if you even bother to check, you'd see your name, your post, in the funny and smart lists for having spent the time to reply to me.  Even if your response was due to your inability to read between the lines, or your joke fell flat, I still love you.

In closing, I want to return to the subject matter at hand, rather than my psuedo intellectual meta spiel.  I'm sure this is all somehow Obama's fault.  He's probably in conspiracy with the Teahadists to criminalize education for rejecting the Muslim faith and creationism.  The net effect is that kids will no longer be smart enough to figure out ...


You forgot to mention that the kid grew up to be a transgenered cop. Otherwise, I think you've got all the bases covered.
2013-10-26 12:18:02 AM
1 votes:
While I don't believe anyone convicted of any crime involving a minor (aside from under 20 banging a 16+) should be working with kids, nor many violent offenders, this bears repeating:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) also opposes the bill because he says the language would ignore the ability of people to overcome their criminal backgrounds by imposing lifetime bans.

Support ban the box legislation - at some point people should be able to move on with their lives. When you commit a nonviolent act and it's still causing you problems years, even decades down the line due to mandatory legislation like this, the law is wrong. Once you've done the time, you should not be able to be continually punished by outside entities, and private companies can get farked.
2013-10-25 11:36:17 PM
1 votes:
I think we need to go full-court-press in a slightly different direction and make it so that anyone with a felony conviction can not run for public office or get appointed/hired/contracted by someone in elected office.

/personally I'd rather not live near an arsonist
//another 10 years and half the population will be on that silly list
///I'm fully nekkid under my clothes!
2013-10-25 11:33:18 PM
1 votes:
Actual teacher here, and I've had to pass multiple fingerprint & background checks from the DOJ & FBI both...BEFORE employment.
2013-10-25 11:15:24 PM
1 votes:
[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!
2013-10-25 11:11:49 PM
1 votes:

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.


And then there's that guy who was walking around naked in his own home at three in the morning and some woman happened to look INTO HIS HOME, saw him, and pressed charges.

Of coarse, if the genders were reversed guess what the outcome would have been.
2013-10-25 11:10:09 PM
1 votes:

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."


That's a nice objective analysis of the story. Now compare it with this.

Megyn Kelly asked on her show tonight, "What is the real endgame by the unions? Because you can't imagine that the unions want convicted rapists to be working next to their children in these schools. So what is the motivation"


and later

"Who wants a convicted sex offender working next to their children?!" Megyn Kelly reacted. "There are certain rights you give up if you rape somebody and get convicted."

See the difference? Of course you do, you're just being an ass.
2013-10-25 11:04:36 PM
1 votes:

MrHappyRotter: I'm sure this is all somehow Obama's fault. He's probably in conspiracy with the Teahadists to criminalize education for rejecting the Muslim faith and creationism.


I winced when I saw they said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MO) was against it. He's the one Muslim in Congress.


/except for the secret ones!!!
2013-10-25 10:47:39 PM
1 votes:
Upon examining Wikipedia's entry of the Sex Offender Registry, apparently my idea of a tiered system is already in place.  But it's not helpful to my proposal of only banning certain tiers from teaching, because the lowest tier, Tier 1, includes offenses such as possession of child pornography.  Call me old-fashioned, but IMHO that is not a desirable trait in a teacher.
2013-10-25 10:46:37 PM
1 votes:
How about we just let people who have fully completed their sentences, including probation, get on with their lives and contribute to society.  Do a background check and handle things on a case by case basis.
2013-10-25 10:40:36 PM
1 votes:
img.fark.net


Nuff said.
2013-10-25 10:32:59 PM
1 votes:
one year for S and G's I checked the database of the 10 miles near my house in Florida. There was no one near our house and I read a bunch of the bios. There was a house that had two people in it...I clicked on it and it was  a husband and wife...and I know them. Their son is on my son's youth football team.

The husband is a raging a-hole. Tats on his neck, anger issues, jorts, etc... The wife is nice enough and helps my wife and I do the water for the team. She loves to run on the field and give the 12-14 year olds water. The coaches of the league knew he was a felon. Not long after I found out, one of our coaches finds out...on his own. He tells the league and to minimize stuff...they say only two on the sidelines besides coaches for water. That is me and my wife. They made this rule to keep them as far from the kids as they could.

We did find out that they are allowed on school property and around kids and all that because...they were convicted before 2003 or 4 when some law was passed prohibiting it.

He plead guilty and will carry the sex offender thing for life. She plead some sort of plea so that she is only on the register for 10 years.

She got lewd conduct with a minor age 12-14 and he got rape of a minor age 14-16 via alcohol/drug coercion. Found out it was their kids baby-sitter.
2013-10-25 10:31:09 PM
1 votes:

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?
2013-10-25 10:29:42 PM
1 votes:
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
2013-10-25 10:25:23 PM
1 votes:

CivicMindedFive: The sex-offender label needs a serious overhaul to exclude things like peeing in a bush and some statutory rape where the age differences are very close together.  That said, I have little doubt unions would still fight this no matter what because it's what government unions do.


Yeah, and your heroes, "the authority", would keep people from teaching if they pee on a wall outside.

Maybe, just maybe, they meet somewhere in the middle.

Huh.

/tiring.
2013-10-25 10:24:51 PM
1 votes:
Just as bad as the Teachers Union in Canada that opposes the firing of teachers convicted of sexually molesting of children.
2013-10-25 10:22:06 PM
1 votes:
Does every "point" these conservative news sources make have to be riddled with a complete lack of common sense?

I'm just tired of all the bullshiat.  When will it end?
2013-10-25 10:20:32 PM
1 votes:
Dear Fox,

Sex offender does not necessarily equal rapist.

Yours in Christ,

The koala

/what does the fox say? WHARGARBLE
2013-10-25 10:19:42 PM
1 votes:
Hubs is a teacher and when he started looking for jobs every district did a background check. I was under the impression that if they found anything he wouldn't get hired.
2013-10-25 10:19:11 PM
1 votes:

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.


That would be one problem.

StatelyGreekAutomaton: "There are certain rights you give up if you rape somebody and get convicted."

Don't get convicted. Porblem solved.


That would be the other problem.
2013-10-25 10:19:08 PM
1 votes:
yeah, i hear the nea constantly clamoring for sentencing reform.
2013-10-25 10:18:11 PM
1 votes:

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!!!!!
2013-10-25 10:18:08 PM
1 votes:
"There are certain rights you give up if you rape somebody and get convicted."

Don't get convicted. Porblem solved.
2013-10-25 10:17:40 PM
1 votes:

anwserman: Yes, because pissing in a bush while drunk in college should disqualify you for teaching kids or having a meaningful rest of your life


But ZOMG UNIONS WANT TO RAPE YOUR CHILDREN!!!

I feel dirty that I clicked on a Fox link by accident.
2013-10-25 10:16:57 PM
1 votes:
Of course teachers are against it, all the hot female ones want to stalk on underage boys and their loser male counterparts comply in the hopes maybe they will get some pity sex.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report