• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Oh Im sure they will be tweet fodder for a few days.
Someone must have gotten to Trump before he got his fingers on his presidential tweet button ( at least for now) regarding Barr's not so rosy feedback on him in a recent ABC interview. Attorney General Barr also indicating he will not be bullied by others including the President. White House replied -- it's not bothered by Barr's comments.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
Quoting from the bill verbatim:

"This bill requires school districts to provide notification and information relating to, and allows pupils to be excused from, any program, curriculum, material, test, survey, questionnaire, activity, announcement, promotion, or instruction of any kind relating to sexual orientation or gender identity."

If I understand it correctly, the requirement to provide notification means that teachers wouldn't be allowed to discuss sexual orientation or gender identity without first running their plans by parents. While I grant you that "Iowa would ban teachers from saying that Pete Buttigieg is gay without notifying parents" is a rather tabloidy way of putting it, I think you're splitting hairs and ignoring the essential truth of this claim. Yes, the word "ban" isn't used in the bill, but its effect would nevertheless be to prevent (i.e., ban) teachers from covering LGBTQI topics without first telling parents.
This isn’t a far fetched issue. Curriculum all over the country that parents can “opt out” from. This is not new or novel.

One might disagree, but parents do have that right in a public school.

The headline is sensationalized to meet the current political climate
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
Quoting from the bill verbatim:

"This bill requires school districts to provide notification and information relating to, and allows pupils to be excused from, any program, curriculum, material, test, survey, questionnaire, activity, announcement, promotion, or instruction of any kind relating to sexual orientation or gender identity."

If I understand it correctly, the requirement to provide notification means that teachers wouldn't be allowed to discuss sexual orientation or gender identity without first running their plans by parents. While I grant you that "Iowa would ban teachers from saying that Pete Buttigieg is gay without notifying parents" is a rather tabloidy way of putting it, I think you're splitting hairs and ignoring the essential truth of this claim. Yes, the word "ban" isn't used in the bill, but its effect would nevertheless be to prevent (i.e., ban) teachers from covering LGBTQI topics without first telling parents.
In a public school, parents are notified of a lot of different topics these days prior to teaching them if they are “controversial”. It varies by district and probably more so by state.

As the parent of two children who are still in public schools, there have been times when we are notified about certain topics.

You (and others) might not like this and I can see your side of it, at the same time, even if you disagree, the children this effects or say mine by way of example? They are not yours (in the sense that’s anyone’s) to tell otherwise. I’m sorry but that speaks to a broader topic than just this. Or put another way the state at least as far as I can see in this case doesn’t get to dictate over what is probably (religious objections) to parents.

If I had objections in this case (and pointing out for the 3rd time I don’t): if I did it would be about compulsion by the state (government).

I hope that’s clear because while I think you’ll get what I’m saying, others willl attempt to mischaracterize my statements.

Yes, the word "ban" isn't used in the bill, but its effect would nevertheless be to prevent (i.e., ban) teachers from covering LGBTQI topics without first telling parents.
And breaking this out I don’t think this is how this works. The teachers are going to teach X topic, the parents are informed. Based on what it is the parents decide whether or not their children participate in said instruction. Regardless of any one parent or parents, the teacher continues on with the topic sans X number of children. It’s possible I’m reading it wrong, but again having been through similar situations this is how I take it.
 
Last edited:

MinnieM123

Well-Known Member
You’re a little late, Kelly.

Not that it matters now, but I just wanted to mention that I remember when John Kelly began his job as Chief of Staff. I thought he would be an excellent addition to the White House; and with his military background, instill respect among all staff, while he also kept the day-to-day activities orderly. I recall his first press conference and he was very polite to the press. (I may not have agreed with some of his responses to questions, but he had this strong and gracious presence about him.) I was sad when he resigned. :(

As for the present, I haven't a clue why he held back on the information he's sharing now.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
Not that it matters now, but I just wanted to mention that I remember when John Kelly began his job as Chief of Staff. I thought he would be an excellent addition to the White House; and with his military background, instill respect among all staff, while he also kept the day-to-day activities orderly. I recall his first press conference and he was very polite to the press. (I may not have agreed with some of his responses to questions, but he had this strong and gracious presence about him.) I was sad when he resigned. :(

As for the present, I haven't a clue why he held back on the information he's sharing now.
Because of the character traits you stated in your first paragraph.

You may disagree with the boss but you follow his orders. If you cannot follow the orders, you have the obligation and duty to resign. And under no circumstance do you air the dirty laundry.
 

MinnieM123

Well-Known Member
Because of the character traits you stated in your first paragraph.

You may disagree with the boss but you follow his orders. If you cannot follow the orders, you have the obligation and duty to resign. And under no circumstance do you air the dirty laundry.
You are correct about him (good character traits) by not saying anything negative, while he was employed by the White House.

I guess what I was trying to figure out here was (since he's been gone from that Chief of Staff post for quite some time now), why he continued to wait a long time to bring forth his comments.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Because of the character traits you stated in your first paragraph.

You may disagree with the boss but you follow his orders. If you cannot follow the orders, you have the obligation and duty to resign. And under no circumstance do you air the dirty laundry.
I don't agree in regards to dirty laundry. As a paying taxpayer and a proud citizen of this great country I have the right to know what is going on with our elected officials. General Kelly's credentials are impeccable and I believe him. If Trump 's future tweets try to discredit General Kelly, that would be most unfortunate.
 
Last edited:

aw14

Well-Known Member
In a public school, parents are notified of a lot of different topics these days prior to teaching them if they are “controversial”. It varies by district and probably more so by state.

As the parent of two children who are still in public schools, there have been times when we are notified about certain topics.

You (and others) might not like this and I can see your side of it, at the same time, even if you disagree, the children this effects or say mine by way of example? They are not yours (in the sense that’s anyone’s) to tell otherwise. I’m sorry but that speaks to a broader topic than just this. Or put another way the state at least as far as I can see in this case doesn’t get to dictate over what is probably (religious objections) to parents.

If I had objections in this case (and pointing out for the 3rd time I don’t): if I did it would be about compulsion by the state (government).

I hope that’s clear because while I think you’ll get what I’m saying, others willl attempt to mischaracterize my statements.

And breaking this out I don’t think this is how this works. The teachers are going to teach X topic, the parents are informed. Based on what it is the parents decide whether or not their children participate in said instruction. Regardless of any one parent or parents, the teacher continues on with the topic sans X number of children. It’s possible I’m reading it wrong, but again having been through similar situations this is how I take it.
100%
I’m not sure what people don’t understand. District curriculums, or state wide curriculum, is public information. You can go to any school district website and find their curriculum. Parents have the opportunity to go to board meetings, etc.. to oppose curriculum and assignments. They can also pull THEIR children from a particular class depending on the content of the curriculum. Others might not agree, but parents have the right to make those decisions for their children.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
I don't agree in regards to dirty laundry. As a paying taxpayer and a proud citizen of this great country I have the right to know what is going on with our elected officials. General Kelly's credentials are impeccable and I believe him.
Do you, as a loyal employee, air dirty laundry.about your boss and company in public?

Being a paying member, whether proud of it or not, entitles you to exactly nothing about the conversations between the President and his staff.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Being a paying member, whether proud of it or not, entitles you to exactly nothing about the conversations between the President and his staff.
If the situation that General Kelly was in exposes corruption and unethical practices in the WH, just to name a few, then yes whatever party that is in the WH, the American public has every right to know.
 
Last edited:

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
In a public school, parents are notified of a lot of different topics these days prior to teaching them if they are “controversial”. It varies by district and probably more so by state.

As the parent of two children who are still in public schools, there have been times when we are notified about certain topics.

You (and others) might not like this and I can see your side of it, at the same time, even if you disagree, the children this effects or say mine by way of example? They are not yours (in the sense that’s anyone’s) to tell otherwise. I’m sorry but that speaks to a broader topic than just this. Or put another way the state at least as far as I can see in this case doesn’t get to dictate over what is probably (religious objections) to parents.

If I had objections in this case (and pointing out for the 3rd time I don’t): if I did it would be about compulsion by the state (government).

I hope that’s clear because while I think you’ll get what I’m saying, others willl attempt to mischaracterize my statements.

And breaking this out I don’t think this is how this works. The teachers are going to teach X topic, the parents are informed. Based on what it is the parents decide whether or not their children participate in said instruction. Regardless of any one parent or parents, the teacher continues on with the topic sans X number of children. It’s possible I’m reading it wrong, but again having been through similar situations this is how I take it.
This isn’t a far fetched issue. Curriculum all over the country that parents can “opt out” from. This is not new or novel.

One might disagree, but parents do have that right in a public school.

The headline is sensationalized to meet the current political climate
As a gay man, I don’t consider the headline sensationalised. A person’s sexual orientation shouldn’t be a controversial issue that requires parental permission to discuss. Most topics don’t.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
As a gay man, I don’t consider the headline sensationalised. A person’s sexual orientation shouldn’t be a controversial issue that requires parental permission to discuss. Most topics don’t.
No disrespect- but do you think you are looking at this emotionally or rationally based on how district curricula works and the rights maintained by parents?
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
A person’s sexual orientation shouldn’t be a controversial issue that requires parental permission to discuss. Most topics don’t.
You can disagree all you want, but other people and certainly not a school district do not get to override parents in matters such as this.

Sorry, that might be reductive, but that is the essence if it.
 
Last edited:

aw14

Well-Known Member
You can disagree all you want, but other people and certainly not a school district don’t get to override parents in matter such as this.

Sorry, that might be reductive, but it that is the essence if it.
Exactly, a parent can “opt out” a kid from certain topics. We have it mostly during freshmen health with human sexuality and reproduction. Quite a few opt outs.

It’s their child, their call. Agree or not
 

kong1802

Well-Known Member
Exactly, a parent can “opt out” a kid from certain topics. We have it mostly during freshmen health with human sexuality and reproduction. Quite a few opt outs.

It’s their child, their call. Agree or not
This is true. Which is why I don't understand the need for the bill. Isn't it already law/policy that curriculum be approved and parents can opt out of anything? What is the bill clarifying, exactly?
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
No disrespect- but do you think you are looking at this emotionally or rationally based on how district curricula works and the rights maintained by parents?
What on earth is rational about not wanting your children to hear about gay people? It’s those who fear such topics that are letting their (prejudicial) emotions get the better of them, not me.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
What on earth is rational about not wanting your children to hear about gay people? It’s those who fear such topics that are letting their (prejudicial) emotions get the better of them, not me.
I disagree from the perspective of your response is emotional. No different from theirs. Where the difference comes in, is that those are their children, and they get to decide what the kid learns and doesn’t learn.
 
Top Bottom