It’s Time for a Complaint
AFP is running calls into the school district about the school referendum and the supporters aren’t happy.
West Bend - A national group advocating limits on new taxes and government spending jumped in on a local school building referendum election Friday, just four days before voters go to the polls.
Americans for Prosperity, which maintains a state office in Milwaukee and has offices in other states, sponsored computer-generated telephone calls that began blanketing homes in the West Bend School District on Friday afternoon, according to local residents.
Several members of a local referendum support group have asked the Washington County district attorney’s office to investigate the telephone campaign as a possible violation of state election laws. State laws generally require groups to register with municipal or school district clerks before campaigning on a ballot issue.
I’m pretty sure that the calls are “educational” calls which don’t require AFP to register locally. The calls don’t tell people to vote for or against the referendum. They just tell people about it.
But notice that the complaint was filed on the Friday afternoon before the Tuesday election. It’s a baseless complaint that will likely be dismissed very quickly, but not before the election. But they get to get it in the media for a couple of cycles to distract attention away from the issue itself. This is becoming a somewhat normal campaign tactic.
I should mention that I am named in this complaint. It says:
“There is a direct link between Owen Robinson and Americans for Prosperity. See item referencing rally on 10/18 on this website (AFP) and the corroborating item on his blog. Mr. Robinson is an outspoken opponent of the referendum as evidenced by his writings in the West Bend Daily News.”
“Minimally Owen Robinson has connections to the group doing the illegal calling.”
Ummm… OK. I don’t see how that makes me responsible for AFP’s actions, but whatever. Seems like they just kind of threw whatever they could into the complaint about anyone who has been opposing the referendum. I guess that I thought that I had a right to speak publicly about public policy. Silly me.
... not exactly a “grass roots” organization.
Where does AFP’s funding come from?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 0946 hrs
I’m not sure, but I don’t see how that diminishes my characterization of the It’s Time group. Do you disagree with my characterization or do you just want to play footsie with the “everybody does it” argument?
Posted by Owen on November 03, 2007 at 0957 hrs
Illegal calling?
There is nothing illegal about it.
Posted by K. Carpenter on November 03, 2007 at 1003 hrs
Right, it’s only illegal when it breaks the law… like the law requiring groups to register with the municipal clerk before campaigning on an issue.
So, I assume that they registered, right?
hiho
MpPosted by Mpeterson on November 03, 2007 at 1026 hrs
What exactly is a “grass roots” organization then?
I am guessing your argument relative to the IT group is the narrowness of the base? The funding source seems overwhelmingly local?
My questioning relative to AFP would be the same. Base & $$$.
Owen, you should know by now I’m not an “everybody does it” kind of guy.
You should also know my thinking on money & politics
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1029 hrs
MPeterson -
That pesky Supreme Court and all… Unless AFP is telling people how to vote, they are well within their rights as affirmed by the Supreme Court of these United State.
What laws has AFP broken. Please, point to them. Because I’ve got a slew of Supreme Court decisions in my hand that says they are acting legally.
Do you really think a group funded by the eeeevil Big Oil and Big Insurance (or whatever silly accusation you want to try give credence to), hailing from Kansas, and intruding into local politics hasn’t consulted counsel before doing something like this?
“Right, it’s only illegal when it breaks the law… like the law requiring groups to register with the municipal clerk before campaigning on an issue.
So, I assume that they registered, right?”
Are you going to let the adults talk now??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1036 hrs
How did this get through to the DA so quickly?
If you ever tried to final a complaint with the DA they tell you that you have to go through the Sheriff or Police department.
If it’s a civil complaint you have to file a complaint with the court against the party allegedly that has wronged you.Something smells here…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1041 hrs
Do you really think a group funded by the eeeevil Big Oil and Big Insurance (or whatever silly accusation you want to try give credence to), hailing from Kansas, and intruding into local politics hasn’t consulted counsel before doing something like this?
Gee Pub, I have heard this kind of buzz about AFP before but didn’t know what to think of it.
Thanks for confirming it,
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1046 hrs
I think that a grassroots organization is one that enjoys support from a large number of people. For example, the NRA has millions of paying members - so does PETA. A group which receives over half of its funding from two sources and totals 58 people does not meet the threshold of being grassroots.
As for AFP, you may be right. I don’t know what their funding looks like.
Posted by Owen on November 03, 2007 at 1059 hrs
Ouch, my poor toes.
Yes, definitely. Let’s let the adults talk. But, given your reply, why should I imagine that you’d listen to an adult?
Look, our laws in West Bend are constitutional thank you, and pretty clear. You generally have to register to campaign for a particular issue. Groups that distort easily verifiable facts simply in order to sway votes—well, that seems to be the same as campaigning.
Now, if there are exceptions to this, and you really were an adult, you’d have patiently explained the exceptions and we’d all go home wiser.
Do you want to start over? Or do you wanna cookie and a nap?
Mp
Posted by Mpeterson on November 03, 2007 at 1108 hrs
laws in West Bend are constitutional
Actually, the law here is a state law.
Groups that distort easily verifiable facts simply in order to sway votes—well, that seems to be the same as campaigning.
It may seem to be but the statutes and case law disagree with you. This kind of thing has been litigated to death a thousand times. Unless a group expressly advocates that you vote a particular way, then the calls are considered educational or GOTV efforts. Either way, they do not have to register locally.
Posted by Owen on November 03, 2007 at 1120 hrs
enjoys support from a large number of people.
Is this relative to a larger population?
Actually, I have always thought of grass roots groups as being relatively small and locally based.
I am not sure I would consider PETA or the NRA “grass roots” at this stage of their organizational development. Maybe at one time they were. But that is certainly a debatable point.
What I am trying to get at here Owen, is for this particular issue, which I have no opinion on one way or another, is that you seem to slam the IT group as not being grass roots because of the size of their contributor base. “Contributors” seldom equals “supporters” does it?
I just don’t see that as relevant to the definition of grass roots.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1148 hrs
I didn’t consider my non-grassroots characterization to be a slam. It was a minor observation as part of a look into the funding of the organization. But I believe my characterization to be true.
I see that we have slightly different definitions of what grassroots means. I look more to paying supporters because people who put their money where their mouth is mean more to me than people who merely lend vocal support. But I can see why you give broader credence to general supporters. Fair enough. I contend that a group advocating in a district of 50,000 people or more that can only get 58 donors does not have broad support.
Posted by Owen on November 03, 2007 at 1209 hrs
I look more to paying supporters because people who put their money where their mouth is mean more to me than people who merely lend vocal support.
So given that, how would you characterize AFP’s educational activities on this particular issue relative to your definitions of grassroots and broad support?.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1216 hrs
Owen- According to the article you linked the complaint was filed on Friday because the calls started on Friday. Nothing nefarious there, it is just hard to file a complaint before the action occurs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1235 hrs
pjr,
I wouldn’t. I didn’t claim that AFP’s calls were representative of a grassroots movement. They are representative of a decision by the folks who run AFP. I don’t think that the fact that AFP is doing calls is any more indicative of the general support or opposition to the referendum in the district any more than I think IT’s radio ads are.
John,
My point was more to the fact that the complaint was filed at all. It’s baseless and they probably know it, but they filed it anyway. A cursory look at the complaint by a lawyer would have told them that it was baseless. I believe filed it anyway to get a news story out of it. Not a big deal, but worth noting. The complaint also alleges that AFP is breaking the no call lists, but those lists don’t apply to political things like this.
Posted by Owen on November 03, 2007 at 1243 hrs
The problem as I see it is not that AFP is technically breaking the law, but that it is clear that they have their toes on the line and are leaning over. It doesn’t pass the smell test and to bring it to the attention of the voters was the correct thing to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1436 hrs
I just woke up, MPeterson, and now with a full belly of cookies…
The complaint is ludicrous. Has anyone on here actually read that thing?
The best part: “In any case, failing to show number or identity on caller id was, last time I looked, a violation of WI’s no-call law.””
Outside of the poor, poor writing style (note that a formal complaint would have listed statutes or ordinances violated; formal, professional communications would avoid the use of WI in lieu of the entire “Wisconsin.” Maybe this person shouldn’t be an advocate for increased educational spending…)
And did I miss his exact complaint, because I see allegations of several misdeeds, but that is probably because I know what he is trying to say. This letter appears that someone else (WEAC?) suggested he file a complaint and he couldn’t transfer the notes from the phone call with the suggestor to the letter. It’s schizophrenic…
Is, “last time I looked” a specific legal definition or standard? Because, unless he’s an attorney, his perusal means absolutely bumpkis. Moreover, I bet this person actually has never even looked at the no-call statute. If he did, he’d see that AFP has done nothing wrong. 501(c)‘s are granted wide latitude under the rules and advocacy is expressly exempted, as is electioneering, regardless of where the call originates or what number is (or isn’t) displayed on caller ID.
Are the complainants on the no-call list???? But again, it doesn’t matter. AFP is still allowed to make these calls. Even then - if AFP is electioneering - they have done nothing wrong. All legislation to prevent the so-called auto-dial for campaigning have gone nowhere.
This complaint is not legal in nature and is a poor excuse for such. You can tell it was hurried (for whatever reason). The DA will giggle and dismiss it outright.
Unfortunately, the complainant got exactly what they wanted - a news story. This tactic is stupid and has no place in politics because it only distracts from the wider debate. It is just a game of gotcha and shows little intellectual honesty. It is a way for the complainant to have an excuse if they lose and a bragging right if they win.
It seems to me somebody is trying to play big boy politics after having watched the Ziegler campaign almost torpedoed by last minute complaints or having watched J.B. VanHollen file his silly complaint against OWN.
The tactic is only that - a tactic and has no merit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1451 hrs
Kris -
AFP isn’t standing on a line and leaning over. Please read the SCOTUS opinions on WRTL v. FEC.
If any allegory exists, AFP is shouting from the mountain tops within all legal rights as an advocacy group.
Suggesting there is some sort of impropriety is wrong and lacks an understanding of the issues at play in this case and the overrall debate of the appropriate role of advocacy groups in our electoral process.
Poor Owen. Is this what you have to deal with up there in West Bend?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1457 hrs
It’s legal for a corporation to advocate for or against a referendum so long as it registers, sets up a separate account to run the money through, and discloses who donated the money which was spent.
AFP likely won’t do that, however, because the scum-bags who run it don’t want to disclose which right wing millionaire zealot ponied up the moolah.
What it will do, however, is run an “issue” ad which avoids telling people how to vote on the proposition. You remember the ads which these groups ran right before the last election—“Jim Doyle is a baby-killing dictator. Call Jim Doyle at 608-266-1212 and tell him to stop beating his dead mother.” (A little hyperbole here, of course, but that’s the general intent—make the subject of the ad look like a louse.) An ad like that doesn’t expressly advocate election or defeat and therefore no registration is required—and, more importantly from the perspective of the scum-bags who run AFP, no disclosure is required.
That’s the key point—these low-lifes can’t disclose where the $$$ comes from because if they have to do so, the $$$ dries up. The people who put up the cash lack the cojones to stand up and be identified in public. When you look at what their agents spew, you know why of course.
Some may think it harsh to apply the scum-bag moniker to the folks at AFP. But remember what happened to former Justice John Wilcox when he entrusted his campaign to AFP’s local slimeballs. He paid a $10,000 fine and his good name was tarnished, all because the low-lifes who run AFP in Wisconsin didn’t respect the law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1612 hrs
What wally meant to say:
It’s legal for a corporation to advocate for or against a referendum so long as it registers, sets up a separate account to run the money through, and discloses who donated the money which was spent.
One Wisconsin Now likely won’t do that, however, because the scum-bags who run it don’t want to disclose which Indian tribe ponied up the moolah.
What it will do, however, is run an “issue” ad which avoids telling people how to vote on the proposition. You remember the ads which these groups ran right before the last election—“Mark Green is a child-hating dictator. Call Mark Green at 202-224-3121 and tell him to stop beating his dead mother.” (A little hyperbole here, of course, but that’s the general intent—make the subject of the ad look like a louse.) An ad like that doesn’t expressly advocate election or defeat and therefore no registration is required—and, more importantly from the perspective of the scum-bags who run One Wisconsin Now, no disclosure is required.
That’s the key point—these low-lifes can’t disclose where the $$$ comes from because if they have to do so, the $$$ dries up. The people who put up the cash lack the cojones to stand up and be identified in public. When you look at what their agents spew, you know why of course.
Some may think it harsh to apply the scum-bag moniker to the folks at Own Wisconsin Now.
I have no counter to the remarks about the personal attacks on AFP staff. Apparently because they are scumbags they have no legal protection and their involvement in the issue is moot - wally said so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1657 hrs
I should be fair.
Greater Wisconsin Committee is a group that is more seedy and lacks a legitimate purpose moreso than OWN.
At least OWN advocates ideas.
Something xoff wouldn’t be caught dead doing.
<accept my apologies OWN; you shouldn’t be lumped in with GWC>
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1706 hrs
Unfortunately, the complainant got exactly what they wanted -a news story. This tactic is stupid and has no place in politics…
Pub, I’ll give you the first one, a maybe on the second, and a “Are you from around here, pardner?” on the third.
Antics like this have become the bread and butter of politics.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1717 hrs
I’ve been around too long, pjr.
I remember seeing the first real wave almost a decade ago; I’ve had them delpoyed against friends and I’ve seen friends employ the tactic.
I generally don’t like the tactic either way. I’m not saying they are always without merit - they have proven to catch scofflaws in certain cases. But the vast majority of them are simply news generators for donors and are tantamount to harassment. Again - they ultimately detract from the overrall debate.
See wally’s example; Justice Wilcox’s reputation was tainted by involvement with certain third-party groups. Because of that accusation and ultimate adjudication, nothing Justice Wilcox said or did would be considered legitimate by those who disagreed with him in the marketplace of ideas.
Organizations that violate election laws should be held to account. However, does it speak more to the organizations’ reputations or the complex, schizophrenic and all-too-labyrinthine nature of election laws????
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1731 hrs
Right now we have nothing that protects the public from big money threatening to support opponents of elected officials if they don’t do what they want…where are the conservative representatives in this? There silence is supporting it…it seems to me that it is a conservative issue and thank God there is someone with a little clout that is trying to help.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1839 hrs
I think that issue ads are sleazy no matter what group runs them. The folks now involved with AFP have a record to run from, however, based on their leading Justice Wilcox (who is a good and decent man) astray. He had no idea that he was buying a pig in a poke when he did business with them. He was slimed because they are slimy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1934 hrs
Owen- no prob. Your section of your post was just worded weirdly and that was the confusion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 1953 hrs
Sorry about that. That’s what I get for writing too fast
Posted by Owen on November 03, 2007 at 2003 hrs
AFP got Justice Wilcox elected; I wouldn’t have cared if they had went out and assassinated his opponent, as long as we have a conservative justice on the bench, I’m fine with it.
Owen, you are an excellent judge of character. If you are 100% behind the AFP phone calls, I don’t care WHAT Wisconsin law says, let’s run them 24 hours per day if that is what is needed to defeat this referendum.
We’ve GOT to destroy the stranglehold that public education has on our community. We can’t continue to feed the beast.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 2227 hrs
“We’ve GOT to destroy the stranglehold that public education has on our community.”
That’s perhaps the most asinine statement ever posted on this blog, Ditto. Congratulations. Public education is EVIL! Teachers are EVIL! Book learnin’ is EVIL!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 03, 2007 at 2337 hrs
It has come to my attention that their is a money limit to what can be spent with regards to their filing status. It is believed that AFP has violated law by the cost of spending required to create the calling list and the service costs of providing the calling services. If this is true the charges may hold up and are indeed well founded.
There is also the issue of the fact that the ad had local approval. The charge will evidently be pursued and the individual identified. What that means legally I don’t know, but AFP is associated with people that have been found guilty of election crimes it would not suprise me that they have broken some rules here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2007 at 1449 hrs
It has come to my attention, Kris, that you are full of shit.
I know you are desperate to have this referendum pass, but seriously, you need to step back and realize that a large portion of the community disagrees with you. It does not mean they are breaking the law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2007 at 1510 hrs
Kris,
Here is the relevant law:
11.23 Political groups and individuals; referendum questions. (1) Any group or individual may promote or oppose
a particular vote at any referendum in this state. Before making disbursements, receiving contributions or incurring obligations in excess of $25 in the aggregate in a calendar year for such purposes, the group or individual shall file a registration statement under s. 11.05 (1), (2) or (2r).The key part of that is that they must register to promote or oppose a particular vote. AFP’s calls are educational. They do not tell people to vote a particular way, so they are defined in the law as educational. Therefore they do not have to register. Again, this kind of thing has been litigated a thousand times. It’s solid legal footing.
As for “local approval,” what does that matter? Anyone can weigh in on any issue in any district. It may matter politically whether or not they were brought in by locals, but it matters not one bit in the law.
Finally, WEAC has been calling into the district for days. They are not registered either. Why no complaint? Where do you stand on their calls?
Posted by Owen on November 04, 2007 at 1514 hrs
Thank you Owen, that’s what we needed to see.
hiho
MpPosted by Mpeterson on November 04, 2007 at 1533 hrs
Would have been nice if your side would have taken the less than 5 minutes it took to look up the law before throwing around random accusations….But that wouldn’t have earned you a front page story, now would it?
Not a straight-laced bunch over there, are you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2007 at 1540 hrs
First of all Wendy at no time have I ever used the level of profanity that you just used. It is offensive.
I was told that there is a component to this that revolves around the money spent by the group and that if that level is exceeded and they have not registered then they are in violation. If that fact is true and I said in my post if that is true then the harges would stand up.
I was also told that the local approval also played a role in this and that it could constitute a violation of law.
If those two facts are incorrect then I stand corrected, but if they are in fact in play then I believe that there has been a violation of law. That is all I said. And clearly the least stright laced bunch would include the person using the profanity either now or in that famous Paul Bucher comment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2007 at 1714 hrs
“It has come to my attention, Kris, that you are full of shit.”
Real nice. Really speaks well of the management.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2007 at 1721 hrs
“You were told” a lot of things. You seem to believe a lot of things you are told without doing the research to back it up. See, a lot of West Bend school district residents need more than “I was told.” That’s why we don’t fall for the “I was told that the school is falling apart.” and “I was told that the only possible fix is to take money more money from taxpayers than any other school district has even dared to suggest” arguments.
Quit being told. Do a little research. You will find that what you are told and reality are two significantly different things. Your group purposely misstated the law and presented an embarrassingly written complaint to the DA, again wasting taxpayer dollars.
AFP is standing up for the taxpayers. You pick their pockets. Thank the Good Lord in Heaven for private schools and AFP.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2007 at 1743 hrs
BTW, Kris, no response to the reports that WEAC is doing the same thing? What are your thoughts on the legality of the calls after actually reading the applicable law? If you don’t believe me, you are welcome to search the statutes themselves. They are all online. Wouldn’t that be more productive than speculating on what you were told by people who obviously don’t know what they are talking about?
Posted by Owen on November 04, 2007 at 1756 hrs
Here’s the deal I am not a lawyer and don’t profess to know the law or the legal requirements for this or any other situation. What I do is listen to people who are more knowledgable on a subject than me and draw a conclusion. Remember I said if these things are true. “If” means that it could be that it comes true and if so then charges will stand up. If not then the charges will go away. I never said that this was an absolute.
As far as WEAC if they are not advocatiing then they are with in the law just like the AFP. Also, as you well know there is statute and then there are rules that dictate how statute is enforced. Legislators pass laws and then others determine how those laws are administered. I have not looked at the administrative rules that surround this issue.
The concept of taking info from people that know a subject and then making a decision is part of what management and governance are based on. I didn’t need to be told that the buildings were in bad shape I have seen it hundreds of times for my self. I spent 24 months and hundreds of hours in meetings learning about the subject of the facilities in the West Bend school district. Don’t do the preaching to me that you have complained about for the last several months.
Finally, Owen, no response to the kind of profanity that gets some people run out of this blog? Granted, it was not as bad as Mickey, but it truly takes away from the discourse. I will note that it is not the first time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2007 at 1821 hrs
Kris,
Yes, I realize that you couched your assertions in layers of qualifiers. That’s fine. But it seems that looking up the law and making an informed judgment is a better choice than just throwing around vague references to possible law breaking.
And I agree with you about WEAC. That’s why I haven’t hammered them. I’m sure what they are doing is legal.
Nobody has ever been banned from this blog for profanity. I have griped about it occasionally in the past when it has gotten over the top, but I’ve been known to let loose on occasion myself. I seem to remember that you didn’t mind the occasional curse word when you were posting anonymously and haven’t decried profanity in this space in the past. But my memory could be faulty. I don’t mind profanity on occasion. I’m a big boy. I just don’t like the lengthy, repeated, profanity-laced tirades that litter the comments of some blogs.
Posted by Owen on November 04, 2007 at 1859 hrs
I should add that I agree with Wendy’s assertion. You were definitely speaking out of your ass on that one.
Posted by Owen on November 04, 2007 at 1903 hrs
“AFP is standing up for the taxpayers. You pick their pockets. Thank the Good Lord in Heaven for private schools and AFP.”
A couple days ago you took me to task for my contention that you and Owen don’t give a shit about the public schools, despite your contention that you “support them”—your claim. Pardon the coarse language—I’m stopping way, wsay down to your level. Just throwing your language back at you.
Your most recent posts make it perfectly clear that you really don’t give a damn about the public schools. Your sole objective is to tear them down.
Shame, shame, shame!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2007 at 1917 hrs
Wally, LOVE the conclusions to which you are jumping. That’s really bad for your joints. I hope you have a good physical therapist, especially with all that “stopping” you’re doing.
Good grief. You are offended when I call a spade a spade? Kris is falling all over himself trying to defend his baseless statements. He was wrong, probably willfully. He was writing about things that he knew nothing about, and he was called on it. Kris has a habit of doing that. I was generous with my statement.
I’m over it. The referendum is going to fail miserably on Tuesday. The school board will go back to work next week on a, oh, I’m guessing $79 million referendum. If that one fails, we will all settle for a $60 million referendum. That’s the never-ending school board cycle.
Remember to vote no on Tuesday!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 04, 2007 at 1947 hrs
Me, straight-laced? lol. No one has ever called me straighted laced and lived to tell about it. Straight laced was a term my generation used to refer to people who simply believed everything they were told… and usually the stuff that kept them disenfranchised. Witness, these days, voting patterns in Kansas or Dan Quayle.
No, I was confused by the slick legal equivocation that keeps “promote or oppose” safely distinct from “educational”.
Sorry, but I’m afraid that, to me, AFP’s(sic) automated phone calls sounded a lot less like education than like an attempt to sway public opinion. To me someone attempting to sway public opinion is more in the “promote or oppose” category than in education.
This sounds more like the sort of thing lawyers put together to justify actions they can’t justify with common sense. As usual.
—unless you’d also like to argue that Ward Churchill was “educating” his students when he cooked up his bizarro-world interpretations of 9/11. I don’t think y’all would find that acceptable.
So, as usual, I was just confused by how you were using the language.
Testy because the Aggies lost to LSU? Personally, I’m still reeling over the Tide.
hiho
MpPosted by Mpeterson on November 05, 2007 at 0051 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 11:36 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).