New liberal strategy: Assault 7-year-olds

RM, don't believe everything you read in WingNut Daily!

 

If this is true, it is reprehensible! However, just because 10 people who are liberal do something like this does not mean that all liberals would approve.

 

Regardless of whether this story is accurate or has been embellished, I support the complete separation of education and state. The problem with having government schools is that it has to be one size fits all and so people start fighting in the political realm and in the courts over whose size gets chosen.

If the government stayed of out education, then people could use their tax money that wouldn't be going to the government to send their children to the school of their choice that teaches the values that they want taught.

I am pro choice about education. :thumbs:

 

Typical Liberal Actions

==I am not familiar with this story but I do tend to believe the account. Why? Because it is a typical liberal tactic. They can't debate the issues, and they don't want to debate the issues. What they want is for their positions to be accepted no questions allowed, period. When that does not happen they get very, very angry. I have seen this many times. They start yelling, want let anyone else talk, make wild accusations (w/ no factual supports), and they roll their eyes like it is going out of style. They also try to find ways to strike back. If that means marching in front of a church, they will do it. If that means threatening someone, they will do that. If it means roughing up someone's child, they are not above doing it. These people are out of control.

Btw, the United States Government does not have the authority to define, or redefine, marriage. Period. It is a mute issue. God defines marriage and it cannot be redefined by a bunch of antichrists for political/social purposes. :thumbs:

 

That is true. It would behoove those in favor of a government recognition of homosexual unions to stop trying to hijack the word marriage. Civil unions would be a much better term for them to go for.

Personally, I advocate the separation of marriage and state. The churches should handle performing marriage ceremonies. If the state is going to be involved at all in this issue then it should recognize civil unions and stay out of calling anything "marriage". As you said, Martin, God has already defined marriage. The state should stay out of the marriage business.

 

Because apparently you'll believe anything bad about people you disagree with politically.

Typical? Beating up children is a typical liberal tactic, you say? Those are the same liberals that oppose corporal punishment and child abuse?

Please back up your contention by providing evidence of other assaults on children that this is "typical", Martin.

Are you saying that I can't and don't debate the issues, Martin? That is patently false and you should be ashamed for slandering a large part of the US population.

Martin, debate is more that the mere assertion without evidence or logic that you indulge in. Your overblown slanderous rhetoric says more about you than those you would slime.

Then you are against a constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

Do you consider marriage certificates and divorce decrees to be without legal merit? Do you agree with KenH's position that marriage should be left to the church and civil marriages currently licensed by the State become civil unions instead?

Did Kings David and Solomon defy God by having more than one wife?

 

Here is a different version from the "nasty website" mentioned above:

Quite a different story. Interestingly, the "nasty" website lays out facts unemotionally, without childishly calling names whereas Brian's story is filled with invective and hyperbole.

 

Yea, Yea, Yea

==Did I say that? No. Let me quote myself, "I have seen this many times". So what I said was based on my experience with liberals. This type of behavior is not something that would surprise me. Maybe you should read what someone says before you make false accusations.

==I am not concerned about being politically correct, or politically sensative, so those type charges are meaningless to me. That might work on FOX news or CNN, but not with me. Sorry for wasting your time.

==Likewise.

==I do not support any constitutional amendment on marriage. The United States does not have the authority to define, or redefine, marriage. On this I am in full agreement with Ken.

==No, they have legal merit in courts, banks, and other such institutions. However they do not define marriage. Marriage is defined by its creator alone.

==What do you think?

 

Your source?

 

Did I say you said that? No. Let me quote myself: "Apparently..." Yes, it is apparent from your thetoric "I don't know anything, but I believe this [egregious story]" that you'll believe anything bad about liberals.

Did you understand what I wrote? I ask because your reply has no logical connection.

To recap: You state, "[Liberals] can't debate the issues, and they don't want to debate the issues. " As a liberal, I say that you have made a false statement. That has nothing to do with being politically correct, it has to do with being correct, ie truthful.

Remember, when you smear a group, you smear the individuals in that group.

It is ironic that you claim liberals won't debate the issues, but dismiss that part of the debate yourself.

Thanks. I try.

I disagree about the authority, but I agree that the State and Church should be separated.

So if Wiccans marry their marriage is defined by Wiccan "theology"?

Again, do you think King David and King Solomon violated God's definition of marriage by having more than one wife?

The OP mentions what he terms "a nasty website" which, if you click on it brings you to my source.

It is worthwhile following his links for a more complete view of the story. For instance, when he talks about the protesters holding up "hateful signs" at the courthouse, the photos in the link clearly show that the signs mostly have variations of "Tell The Truth" - yeah, real hateful, that.

You also find from the email trail, that the pricipal of the school scheduled and met with Mr. Parker in the afternoon. Mr. Parker then refused to leave the school building because the superintendent wouldn't come there that evening (Mr. Ashe had not been scheduled to be at the meeting, nor had Mr. Parker requested his presence in any of his emails setting up the meeting) and the building had to be closed for the day. These are the emails the Parkers collected for their own audit trail as evidenced by Parker's request that the principal reconfirm the telephone conversation by email.

The principal's position, as stated in the emails, is that as some of the children's parents are gay couples, she is not going to censor discussions initiated by those childrens about their families and she is not going to notify the Parkers when those children's parents are voluntering at the school. She will notify them before any planned classroom discussion of homosexual issues.

Do you think that single or divorced remarried parents (except when adultery was involved) should also not be discussed in class?

 

I am opposed to state-sponsored adoptions by homosexuals but how do you propose to stop a child in a government school from talking about his parent(s) who may be homosexual?

 

Maybe the conversation can be squelched in the classroom but there's not much that can be done to limit the conversation on the playground or in the cafeteria or walking to and from school.

But even squelching the conversation in the classroom will be difficult in some areas of the nation(e.g., San Francisco). Better to divorce education from state and allow people to use their tax money to send their children to the school where their values will be taught as they wish.

 

Oh, you mean like Jesus did when he talked about the Jews?

 

==That is not true, I do not believe something bad about someone just because I disagree with them. In fact many people who know me will tell you that I am just the opposite. My point was that the type of behavior mentioned in the article is the type of behavior I would expect from angry liberals. I have seen them protest at churches, vandalize personal property, and call people names. Yes some conservatives do this however the problem is much more serious among liberals. So yes, in general, I have no problem believing the story. If the story is wrong thats fine however my point stands. This is the type of behavior that I would not put past angry liberals. They scream, shout, call names, and the like. Do all liberals do this? Certainly not. However those who do I would put very little past them. Why? Because I have seen them in action.

==In my experience many liberals don't want to, and some can't, debate the issues. Instead they fall back on side track arguments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, rely on one sided data, and usually scream and yell so nobody can get a word in edge wise. I know because I have seen it and many times been the "nobody" who could not get them to be quite long enough so I could make a point (one reason I like forums). Does this apply to all liberals? No.

==I will keep that in mind next time I hear a liberal smearing the "Christian right".

==My view is simple. God is the creator of marriage, and thus God defines marriage. The Bible warns against those who "defile" the "marriage bed" (Heb 13:4). These people who attemt to re-define marriage will face God's judgment. That is not my opinion, that is Scriptural fact. If the United States government, or any national or state government, try to redefine marriage they are going beyond their authority and stepping right into the path of the judgment of God.

==I am not going to give you a direct answer until you tell me what this has to do with gay marriage. God created marriage as one man and one woman in union for life (Gen 2:24, Matt 19:4-9).

==No. School is for learning reading, english, math, history, science, and physical education. It is not a place for teachers or administrators to attempt to brain wash children into their political/social views. I apply this to all sides (liberal and conservative). Homosexuality should not be promoted in public schools.

 

Having a 7 year old kid beat up to spite his parents - you've seen liberals do that? Or are you saying that having a little boy beat up is the same thing as protesting a church? Sorry, it just is not the same thing at all. That you think that someone who is angry enough to yell at someone will also stage a vicious mugging on a little kid - if they are a liberal - bespeaks your prejudice.

Now you've changed your story from "liberals" to "many liberals". That's an improvement. Now, if you could drop the gross generalizations and insults you might be more credible.

Did you think that was just? If not, why do you employ that tactic?

If marriage is honorable in all, isn't it honorable for gays as well? Or does all not mean all?

It has to do with the definition of marriage. David and Solomon each had far more than one wife. (1 Sam 25:43, 1 Sam 27:3, 1 Sam 30:3,5,18; 2 Sam 2:2, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3-4, Zec 12:12, 1 Chron 14:3 ). If they were not married to these wives why does the Scripture say they were? I haven't seen where God says "This and nothing else is marriage".

Then all little children should be forbidden to discuss their families?