New liberal strategy: Assault 7-year-olds

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by Revmitchell, Jun 16, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Posted: June 16, 2006
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    [FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]
    [FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com [/FONT]
    Liberals in Lexington, Mass., have taken to beating up the 7-year-old children of their political opponents.
    This disgusting tactic should be featured on the front pages of every newspaper across the nation, yet you've heard nary a word about it.
    Here are the specs:
    A number of months ago, as first reported by yours truly, Superintendent Paul Ash decided to have his second-grade teachers begin reading a "fairy tale" about two princes getting it on homosexual style to be read in the classrooms under his direction. The book was called "King and King."
    In reaction, parents from the Estabrook School decided to plead with Ash as to whether this book should be allowed. The all-powerful Ash laughed and went on his way.

    Somewhat disheartened by this response, the parents then made the completely over-the-top request of being notified when such material would be presented in the classroom – especially if it knowingly violated their conscience and their religious convictions.
    Growing somewhat angry, the all-powerful Ash shot the parents a verbal middle finger by retorting, "Estabrook has no legal obligation to notify parents about the book. We couldn't run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed. Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal."
    This profane sort of arrogance didn't sit well with one of the parents by the name of David Parker. He went to the school to discuss it directly with Ash. When Parker refused to leave without being heard by the all-powerful Ash, he was arrested. Remember, Parker's only request was to be notified when homosexuality or transgenderism was to be discussed.
    Word spread amongst the liberal activist groups around the area. Nasty letters began to be written to local newspapers in an effort to get Parker to back down. When that didn't work, a nasty website was created to spread the anti-Parker venom via the Internet and rally the call to other activist groups nationwide.
    On the day of Parker's hearing, the Ash/Nasty coalition turned out dozens of adults to demonstrate hate-filled nastiness against Parker as he entered and exited the courthouse – all in an attempt to get him to shut up. The nasties even convinced the school district to post anti-Parker newspaper stories on the bulletin boards throughout the schools as another means of intimidation.
    None of it worked!
    Instead, on April 27 Parker and another family from the school district filed a federal civil-rights suit against the school district. This made Ash and the other nasties even angrier, and some of them decided to get even.
    At the courthouse hearings and many of the protests outside Parker's home, the nasties had used children to hold up hateful signs and demonstrate alongside their nasty parents. They also recruited young children to participate in angry anti-Parker demonstrations outside the school and to engage in letter-writing campaigns.
    But on May 17, they crossed the line.
    That was the day that 10 of these thug-kins grabbed David Parker's 7-year-old son, dragged him behind the corner of the school, well out of sight from school officials, and proceeded to punch him in the groin, stomach and chest, before he dropped to the ground when they then kicked and stomped on him. Several of the alleged thug-kins were children of the adults who had been protesting Parker, several of them not even in the same class as Parker's child. It also needs to be pointed out that May 17 was a targeted date because that is the anniversary of changing the marriage definitions in the state of Massachusetts to include homosexual unions. Emotions among many activists were running very high on that day.
    The school district "investigated" and did determine that the attack was pre-meditated. Shockingly, they decided no punishment necessary for the 10 thug-kins who were serving as political hit men for the activists in Lexington.
    All of this happening because one father wished to reserve the right to teach his own family's faith-based views on sexuality.
    I support the lawsuit David Parker is bringing against Ash and the Estabrook School District. Standing up is always the right thing to do. His legal fees are growing, and if you are interested in making a donation to help – as I have – I would encourage you to. I would also encourage you to drop an e-mail to Paul Ash or place a phone call – either way, it is obvious that Ash believes that he is unaccountable to the parents of his district. Paul Ash's e-mail address is [email protected]. His phone number at the school is (781) 861-2550.
    It's also very sad that Ash's compadres have sunk to the level of assaulting the 7-year-old child of David Parker in their attempts to shut him up. But then again, liberals don't believe in absolutes, morality or the law – so why should we be surprised?

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50669
    [/FONT]
     
  2. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    RM, don't believe everything you read in WingNut Daily!
     
  3. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  5. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  8. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  10. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0

    Your source?
     
  11. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Then the Principles position is wrong. The principle nor the teacher gets to decide when our children are taught about these issues.

    Student initiation has become an excuse for the left to interject this vile, ungodly, disgusting behavior. My children are 18, 9, 6, and 5. The last three know nothing of homosexuality at this point. And they are not going to know it until "I" am ready to discuss it with them. The school is used as a tool by the gay movement to further their political cause.

    The principle is wrong! The teachers are wrong! The Homosexuals are wrong! The Gay parents are wrong! Talking about it in classs is Wrong and sinful! And we are not going to stand by and tolerate their excuses, plots, plans, and assertions!
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    True Christians cannot defend this behavior



    1 Corinthians 6:9-11 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Well the children who are forced to live in that atmosphere dont know any better. But it is not the teachers job to clarify it. The teacher should squelch the conversation and encourage the kids to go home and ask their parents. Even send a note home to parents that the subject came up. This is a sensative subject and should not be handled without parental authority.
     
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    You got it:thumbs: 10
     
  18. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, you mean like Jesus did when he talked about the Jews?
     
  19. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==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.
     
  20. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...