PDA

View Full Version : Occupiers Dump Condoms on Catholic School Girls



Hawkgirl
01-31-2012, 08:19 PM
A group of Occupy Wall Street protesters disrupted a Right to Life rally and threw condoms on Catholic school girls inside the Rhode Island state capitol building.

Barth Bracy, executive director of Rhode Island Right to Life, said their rally had to be cut short after the Occupiers began screaming and refused to allow a Catholic priest to deliver a prayer.

“This is their idea of civil speech but we believe it’s an outrage,” Bracy told Fox News & Commentary “They started heckling, chanting and blowing whistles. They shouted down a priest.”

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/occupiers-dump-condoms-on-catholic-school-girls.html

Seriously? Time to push back.

JB
01-31-2012, 08:28 PM
Seriously? Time to push back.The time has come and gone HG.

I'm a reasonable man but there's only so many cheeks you can turn.

NJCardFan
01-31-2012, 08:38 PM
And once again these idiots show their maturity as well as hypocrisy. They scream about free speech(like flag burning) but a pro life rally needs to be shouted down and they need to assault(and that's what this was, an assault) school children. And people like Nova and wee wee lap it up and cheer them on.

Hawkgirl
01-31-2012, 08:46 PM
And once again these idiots show their maturity as well as hypocrisy. They scream about free speech(like flag burning) but a pro life rally needs to be shouted down and they need to assault(and that's what this was, an assault) school children. And people like Nova and wee wee lap it up and cheer them on.


Not only school children...

"the pro-life crowd was made up of senior citizens, mothers with young children, Cub Scouts, and school kids.

Bracy said one of the most egregious incidents occurred when an Occupier climbed to the third floor balcony and dumped a box of condoms on girls from a Catholic school."

I wonder if they would behave this way with "colorful" folks marching in a Gay Parade? Probably not, but it's okay to bully old folks, mothers with young children, and kids.

SarasotaRepub
01-31-2012, 10:18 PM
Bah! Clearly Agent Provocateurs...:sarcasm:

NJCardFan
02-01-2012, 12:43 AM
Not only school children...

"the pro-life crowd was made up of senior citizens, mothers with young children, Cub Scouts, and school kids.

Bracy said one of the most egregious incidents occurred when an Occupier climbed to the third floor balcony and dumped a box of condoms on girls from a Catholic school."

I wonder if they would behave this way with "colorful" folks marching in a Gay Parade? Probably not, but it's okay to bully old folks, mothers with young children, and kids.

Which is my point. As much as the left tries to tie the Westboro Baptist Church with the right, we conservatives abhor that group but in this case, the left cheer this type of behavior on and see nothing wrong with it. This is why the left is inherently disgusting. As long as the target is someone they don't agree with, acting like a bunch of delinquent children is acceptable.

noonwitch
02-01-2012, 09:33 AM
There's no defense for that.

txradioguy
02-01-2012, 09:38 AM
Bracy said one of the most egregious incidents occurred when an Occupier climbed to the third floor balcony and dumped a box of condoms on girls from a Catholic school."



http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/specials/redcarpet/blog/070205/ron_burgundy2_180.jpg

Stay Classy OWS. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 10:09 AM
Not only school children...

"the pro-life crowd was made up of senior citizens, mothers with young children, Cub Scouts, and school kids.

Bracy said one of the most egregious incidents occurred when an Occupier climbed to the third floor balcony and dumped a box of condoms on girls from a Catholic school."

I wonder if they would behave this way with "colorful" folks marching in a Gay Parade? Probably not, but it's okay to bully old folks, mothers with young children, and kids.
Well, in all fairness, a Gay Pride Parade would bring it's own condoms...

But, this is how the left operates. They calculate the maximum offense that they can impose on us and then do it without any inhibition, but when anything is done that offends them in the slightest, they go berserk and use it to justify even more outrageous behavior. It's part of their overall strategy of defining acceptable conduct so that eventually, the only thing that anyone is allowed to do is acquiesce.

Which is my point. As much as the left tries to tie the Westboro Baptist Church with the right, we conservatives abhor that group but in this case, the left cheer this type of behavior on and see nothing wrong with it. This is why the left is inherently disgusting. As long as the target is someone they don't agree with, acting like a bunch of delinquent children is acceptable.

It's more than acceptable, it's necessary. The left operates by demonizing, threatening and silencing opposition. It's the same in political campaigns. Look at how they pretend to fact check political ads. Any claim that they don't approve of is declared false, regardless of the facts, while any claim that supports their agenda is, by definition, true, and repetition of a "false" claim is therefore grounds for all manner of attack. In their world, we're not allowed to speak, defend ourselves or our ideas, or even provide more than token opposition. The left wants the kind of power that totalitarian leaders always have, which is why they keep pining for those systems. Every time a columnist at some elitist rag tells us how much better the Chinese, Venezuelan, Cuban or Euro-Socialist version of central planning is, they're letting you know that they want us under their boot. Everything else is just window dressing.

Tipsycatlover
02-01-2012, 11:17 AM
THe authorities are hamstrung. They can't fight the left. It's up to the people. Had that group been treated by the people there, as they should have been, it would have been over very quickly. The talk would have gone on without the protesters.

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 11:27 AM
THe authorities are hamstrung. They can't fight the left. It's up to the people. Had that group been treated by the people there, as they should have been, it would have been over very quickly. The talk would have gone on without the protesters.

No, the authorities can fight the left, they just choose not to. Bloomberg could have evicted OWS from Zucotti Park after the first couple of days, and the movement would have fizzled. The Oakland Mayor bent over backwards to accommodate Occupy Oakland, until she couldn't ignore their lawlessness any longer. In every major city that the Occupiers have had a prolonged presence, the local government has done everything in its power to aid and abet their lawlessness.

Novaheart
02-01-2012, 11:34 AM
Why was a minion of a foreign Prince going to speak inside the rotunda of the state capitol in Providence?

NJCardFan
02-01-2012, 12:03 PM
Why was a minion of a foreign Prince going to speak inside the rotunda of the state capitol in Providence?

Did you OD on your asshole pills again? God, you're starting to make wee wee sound rational.

Novaheart
02-01-2012, 12:20 PM
Did you OD on your asshole pills again? God, you're starting to make wee wee sound rational.

I notice that you didn't say I was incorrect.

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 12:37 PM
Why was a minion of a foreign Prince going to speak inside the rotunda of the state capitol in Providence?

Because he is a US citizen and a citizen of the state in question, and therefore has that right. Why did the Occupiers dump condoms on children? Do you believe that they have that right?

txradioguy
02-01-2012, 02:24 PM
Why was a minion of a foreign Prince going to speak inside the rotunda of the state capitol in Providence?

Do you try to be this obtuse or does it just come naturally to try and be as offensive as possible whenever possible?

NJCardFan
02-01-2012, 02:41 PM
Because he is a US citizen and a citizen of the state in question, and therefore has that right. Why did the Occupiers dump condoms on children? Do you believe that they have that right?

Yes he does. This is why he puts the blame on the priest.

NJCardFan
02-01-2012, 02:41 PM
I notice that you didn't say I was incorrect.

Because you're an asshole which makes you wrong by extension.

Novaheart
02-01-2012, 02:43 PM
Because he is a US citizen and a citizen of the state in question, and therefore has that right. Why did the Occupiers dump condoms on children? Do you believe that they have that right?



The Foreign Agents Registration Act is a United States law (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers be properly identified to the American public.


The act requires people and organizations that are under foreign control ("agents of a foreign principal") to register with the Department of Justice when acting on behalf of foreign interests. This law defines the agent of a foreign principal as someone who:

Engages in political activities for or in the interests of a foreign principal;
Acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal;
Solicits or dispenses any thing of value within the United States for a foreign principal;
Represents the interests of a foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government.[1

Novaheart
02-01-2012, 02:45 PM
Yes he does. This is why he puts the blame on the priest.

I only chose to comment on one aspect of the article. That says absolutely nothing about any other aspect of the article.

enslaved1
02-01-2012, 03:08 PM
Why don't they find a mosque and throw bacon at the worshipers there?

Odysseus
02-01-2012, 03:14 PM
The Foreign Agents Registration Act is a United States law (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) passed in 1938 requiring that agents representing the interests of foreign powers be properly identified to the American public.


The act requires people and organizations that are under foreign control ("agents of a foreign principal") to register with the Department of Justice when acting on behalf of foreign interests. This law defines the agent of a foreign principal as someone who:

Engages in political activities for or in the interests of a foreign principal;
Acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal;
Solicits or dispenses any thing of value within the United States for a foreign principal;
Represents the interests of a foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government.[1
Very clever. Wrong, but clever. A priest is not an agent of Rome, in that sense. The First Amendment protections for the free exercise of religion exclude religious organizations from those requirements.


I only chose to comment on one aspect of the article. That says absolutely nothing about any other aspect of the article.

So, you're focusing on the presence of a priest in a state office, and attempting to misrepresent his status, in order to evade the major point of the article? While you're at it, why don't you write about how lovely the font is, or the state of cleanliness of the rotunda, or some other irrelevant idiocy instead of dealing with the issue at hand?

Or, you could discuss the OP topic, which is that an Occupy group dumped condoms (hopefully not used ones, although I (a) wouldn't put it past them if they'd thought of it and (b) shouldn't give them the idea for next time) on a bunch of school kids. Your thoughts (or what passes for them)?

Novaheart
02-02-2012, 01:18 AM
Or, you could discuss the OP topic, which is that an Occupy group dumped condoms_ on a bunch of school kids. Your thoughts (or what passes for them)?

• The condoms are hygienic, harmless, and if more Catholic school girls would use them then there would be fewer abortions.

• If you are old enough to attend an abortion rally, then you are old enough to face the opposition, regardless of which side you are on. Otherwise, all a protest group would have to do is surround themselves with minors to ensure that there is no counter protest.

• In reading the articles , it seems the abortion group was more upset by the Priest being drowned out (note that the choice group did not drown out Carol Whatshername who spoke to the group) than it was by the condoms. Otherwise, they would have removed the minors or themselves from the rotunda during the condom shower.

• Operation Recuse shows kids this:

http://www.truthtruck.com/images1/splash_rt_1.jpg

AmPat
02-02-2012, 11:44 AM
• The condoms are hygienic, harmless, and if more Catholic school girls would use them then there would be fewer abortions.

• If you are old enough to attend an abortion rally, then you are old enough to face the opposition, regardless of which side you are on. Otherwise, all a protest group would have to do is surround themselves with minors to ensure that there is no counter protest.

• In reading the articles , it seems the abortion group was more upset by the Priest being drowned out (note that the choice group did not drown out Carol Whatshername who spoke to the group) than it was by the condoms. Otherwise, they would have removed the minors or themselves from the rotunda during the condom shower.

• Operation Recuse shows kids this:

http://www.truthtruck.com/images1/splash_rt_1.jpg
Curious, do they throw the posters on the kids???:rolleyes:

I would charge the OWS pukes with sexual assault. Let them spend some of their own money defending their disgusting behavior.

Novaheart
02-02-2012, 12:03 PM
Curious, do they throw the posters on the kids???:rolleyes:


A condom weighs 2 grams, considerably less than the beads little Maria got hit in the head with at the St Patrick's Day Parade. You're so cute when you are desperate.

Rockntractor
02-02-2012, 12:16 PM
Curious, do they throw the posters on the kids???:rolleyes:

I would charge the OWS pukes with sexual assault. Let them spend some of their own money defending their disgusting behavior.

In Nova's world there are no kids, only opportunities.

NJCardFan
02-02-2012, 12:45 PM
A condom weighs 2 grams, considerably less than the beads little Maria got hit in the head with at the St Patrick's Day Parade. You're so cute when you are desperate.

Wow. Just when I thought you couldn't get any more assholish, you say something like this and the post above. Tell you what, how about I wing a baseball at your head? Different you say? No. Assault is assault. But, Nove, I think it's time for you to go back to the DUmp. It's where you belong. When you start making Wee Wee sound rational, it's time for you to go.

Odysseus
02-02-2012, 01:50 PM
• The condoms are hygienic, harmless, and if more Catholic school girls would use them then there would be fewer abortions.
So, you're not only okay with it, you endorse it. I should be surprised, but I'm not.


•If you are old enough to attend an abortion rally, then you are old enough to face the opposition, regardless of which side you are on. Otherwise, all a protest group would have to do is surround themselves with minors to ensure that there is no counter protest.
Which, BTW, is how Hamas protects its rocket sites. But, if you believe that a child who is old enough to attend a pro-life event is old enough to be subjected to sexual devices being thrown at them, then I submit that a woman who is old enough to demand her right to an abortion is mature enough to handle the informed consent requirement.


• In reading the articles , it seems the abortion group was more upset by the Priest being drowned out (note that the choice group did not drown out Carol Whatshername who spoke to the group) than it was by the condoms. Otherwise, they would have removed the minors or themselves from the rotunda during the condom shower.
So, the condom shower was deliberately planned to force the removal of the Catholic group from the rotunda? Sounds like an impermissible attack on their rights to free speech, assembly and petitioning the government to me.


•• Operation Recuse shows kids this:

http://www.truthtruck.com/images1/splash_rt_1.jpg
And that's wrong, too, but do they go out of their way to target kids with that message the way that the protestors here did with their condoms?

Novaheart
02-02-2012, 03:42 PM
So, you're not only okay with it, you endorse it. I should be surprised, but I'm not.

I neither said nor implied that I endorsed it. I simply and objectively analyzed the importance of it.




Which, BTW, is how Hamas protects its rocket sites.

I was thinking that myself at the time, but didn't want to say it lest some genius like AMpat or Bailey accuse me of likening "Catholic school girls" to terrorists.




But, if you believe that a child who is old enough to attend a pro-life event is old enough to be subjected to sexual devices being thrown at them,.......

So these "catholic school girls" are at an anti-abortion protest, but condoms are taboo? Are you serious? And BTW, a dildo is a sexual device. A condom is a barrier birth control device, no one has ever accused it of assisting or enhancing sex. But keep being desperate.




So, the condom shower was deliberately planned to force the removal of the Catholic group from the rotunda?

I didn't read anywhere in the articles that a condom shower was planned or planned for any purpose. Given that the article said it was "a box" of condoms, we might be talking about ten condoms. Whoop tee to! I doubt seriously it ever crossed the mind of the individual who tossed the condoms that there would be a Henny Penny effect, and clearly there wasn't. Only the article writer seems obsessed with portraying this as a shower of condums on "catholic school girls". I watched the video, there was no core group of "Catholic school girls" that I could discern. There were people at the demonstration from about 18 months to 80 years, including a couple of twelve to teen girls.


Sounds like an impermissible attack on their rights to free speech, assembly and petitioning the government to me.

The most that these people did was disturbing the peace. If they weren't removed so the Papist Priest could have his speech, then your gripe is with the state police.



And that's wrong, too, but do they go out of their way to target kids with that message the way that the protestors here did with their condoms?

It's not simply wrong, it's worse. It's potentially a much more traumatic impact on a child than being tapped on the head or shoulders by a two gram piece of latex in a plastic wrapper. It's obscene, and Operation Rescue does it without regard for the children which might be in cars, busses, or on the street.

NJCardFan
02-02-2012, 04:49 PM
So these "catholic school girls" are at an anti-abortion protest, but condoms are taboo? Are you serious? And BTW, a dildo is a sexual device. A condom is a barrier birth control device, no one has ever accused it of assisting or enhancing sex. But keep being desperate.






You don't watch a lot of Trojan commercials do you...or does "ribbed for her pleasure" mean something different to you? That said, I love how you are defending an assault. You're the biggest douchebag I've ever come across.

Odysseus
02-02-2012, 05:16 PM
I neither said nor implied that I endorsed it. I simply and objectively analyzed the importance of it.
Simply, yes. Objectively, no.

I was thinking that myself at the time, but didn't want to say it lest some genius like AMpat or Bailey accuse me of likening "Catholic school girls" to terrorists.
The difference, of course, is that the Catholics didn't bring the school girls there as a shield against physical assault or attack. They didn't go there expecting to be subjected to physical abuse by counter-protestors.


So these "catholic school girls" are at an anti-abortion protest, but condoms are taboo? Are you serious? And BTW, a dildo is a sexual device. A condom is a barrier birth control device, no one has ever accused it of assisting or enhancing sex. But keep being desperate.
No one? Ever heard the phrase, "ribbed for her pleasure"? For that matter, why even use birth control if not to assist sex?

I didn't read anywhere in the articles that a condom shower was planned or planned for any purpose. Given that the article said it was "a box" of condoms, we might be talking about ten condoms. Whoop tee to! I doubt seriously it ever crossed the mind of the individual who tossed the condoms that there would be a Henny Penny effect, and clearly there wasn't. Only the article writer seems obsessed with portraying this as a shower of condums on "catholic school girls". I watched the video, there was no core group of "Catholic school girls" that I could discern. There were people at the demonstration from about 18 months to 80 years, including a couple of twelve to teen girls.
I took the phrase "condom shower" from your post. Had you not used it, I wouldn't have. However, I do thiink that the person who threw them knew exactly what he was doing, which was incitement. It would be like throwing crosses at a Muslim rally, although the Catholics are less likely to riot as a result. For that matter, throwing crosses at liberals would have had the same effect.


The most that these people did was disturbing the peace. If they weren't removed so the Papist Priest could have his speech, then your gripe is with the state police.
Disturbing the peace, assault (remember, the legal definition of assault is any unsolicited and unwelcome physical contact), incitement and, at the very least, littering.


It's not simply wrong, it's worse. It's potentially a much more traumatic impact on a child than being tapped on the head or shoulders by a two gram piece of latex in a plastic wrapper. It's obscene, and Operation Rescue does it without regard for the children which might be in cars, busses, or on the street.

They are fixated on the children in womb, but I agree. When I was in college, one of our classes was in a building that had a Planned Parenthood office, and while protestors often talked to women entering the building, I never saw the kind of graphic images that you presented. OTOH, when Giuliani tried to remove the doors on stalls in the bathhouses in NYC at the height of the AIDS epidemic (the bathhouse owners claimed that they could not police the sexual conduct in their bathrooms because of the closed stalls), gay activists put up posters with an explicit photo of a man on all fours, from the back, nude, with the caption, "Giuliani wants to watch you f***." Those posters were all over the west side of Manhattan, including my block, which had a high school and a junior high school on it.

Lager
02-02-2012, 05:19 PM
Contrary to the incident causing harm to the children, I think it will strengthen their resolve. It will be a valuable lesson in the immaturity rampant in those who take the opposing side of their position. Hopefully the collective parents will not pursue the victim route in this incident, but will use the OWS actions it to reinforce a lesson to the kids on how adults deal with differences of opinion versus children. They should also compliment their kids on taking and maintaining the high road.

Hawkgirl
02-02-2012, 06:36 PM
"Bracy said capitol police were outnumbered and overwhelmed by the protesters. At one point they even attacked State. Rep. Doreen Costa.

“This was one of the most disturbing sights I’ve ever seen,” Costa told Fox News & Commentary. “It was horrendous. “

Costa said a female Occupier hit her on the head with a sign and shoved her “moppy” hair in the lawmaker’s face.

“I told her that she really stunk bad and needed to take a bath,” Costa said."


Nova, they weren't just throwing condoms on children, they also assaulted a person. I'm beginning to think you're an OWS protester yourself. First you defend the man who left a toddler in tent by herself, now you defend them for assaulting and humuliating children.

JB
02-02-2012, 06:50 PM
A condom weighs 2 gramsSo it's nothing more than the size of the instrument used in the assault to determine whether it was acceptable or not.

I'll remember that the next time I have 2 grams of anthrax that I wish to share with some Occupukes. Or the next time I decide to impose my will on a liberal and make him eat 2 grams of shit.

I'm calling shenanigans on you anyway. Not even you could be on the wrong side of this. Classic shit-stirring on your part.

Hawkgirl
02-02-2012, 06:53 PM
So it's nothing more than the size of the instrument used in the assault to determine whether it was acceptable or not.

I'll remember that the next time I have 2 grams of anthrax that I wish to share with some Occupukes. Or the next time I decide to impose my will on a liberal and make him eat 2 grams of shit.

I'm calling shenanigans on you anyway. Not even you could be on the wrong side of this. Classic shit-stirring on your part.


I agree, he's just trolling for a rise out of us. I can't see how anyone could defend this.

JB
02-02-2012, 07:33 PM
I can't see how anyone could defend this.What is with these libpukes and assault anyway? Flour, paint, condoms. They glitter-blombed Romney twice yesterday.

You said something about pushing back in your OP. These aholes are going to really regret it when it finally starts.

Hawkgirl
02-02-2012, 07:42 PM
What is with these libpukes and assault anyway? Flour, paint, condoms. They glitter-blombed Romney twice yesterday.

You said something about pushing back in your OP. These aholes are going to really regret it when it finally starts.


And then they will play the victim. What else is new in the world of liberal pukefests.

Novaheart
02-02-2012, 07:44 PM
I'm calling shenanigans on you anyway.

:D

Hawkgirl
02-02-2012, 08:00 PM
:D

So, you like to waste people's time?

NJCardFan
02-02-2012, 08:14 PM
I agree, he's just trolling for a rise out of us. I can't see how anyone could defend this.
Which is why he needs to go. Seriously. Nova needs to go. He not only makes Wee Wee sound rational but he's starting to make CITM and that Yukon person sound not to bad.

Novaheart
02-02-2012, 08:20 PM
Which is why he needs to go. Seriously. Nova needs to go. He not only makes Wee Wee sound rational but he's starting to make CITM and that Yukon person sound not to bad.

You have issues that can't be addressed here.

JB
02-02-2012, 08:21 PM
Which is why he needs to go. Seriously. Nova needs to go.Nooo. He's a half-decent egg. Besides, I need him around to clean up the place when I have chicks over.

NJCardFan
02-02-2012, 08:22 PM
You have issues that can't be addressed here.

Nothing wrong with me. I don't go around starting shit just to get off like you do. You're the lowest form of humanity.

Novaheart
02-02-2012, 11:24 PM
Nothing wrong with me. I don't go around starting shit just to get off like you do. You're the lowest form of humanity.

So much of what you "respond" to is in your head. I was amused at shenanigans. Eventually you will figure out that what I don't play games. I pretty much call them as I see them, and in this case I don't think the condom shower was a big deal. Shouting down the speaker, even a papist minion, was wrong... assuming that the abortion group had reserved the space for their exclusive use. If it was simply the public square, then the rules are a little different though even then not exactly a free for all.

Political demonstrations are by their very nature a platform for objection, and are often met with objection by competing voices. To try to gain some advantage in this by dragging along some "catholic school girls" or babies, or old people so you can claim that the opposing voices are monstrous is rather disingenuous.

And since the "well if" argument almost always surfaces : Yes, there are evangelicals with loudspeakers and offensive signs at Gay Pride parades, completely without regard for the fact that there are sensitive people, children, parents, and grandparents at the Pride parade. There are screaming evangelicals who completely disregard that the Gay Pride parade in St Petersburg is a family friendly and largely nonpolitical event of a light nature. It's not nice to have men from Georgia carrying huge signs that say that your parents will burn in hell, die of aids, and god will be pleased by your death- but that's what kids at the Pride parade are visually bombarded with. Should they stay home because of six evangelical jackasses who make their living being obnoxious? No. They learn to ignore the evangelical trash, because it's a skill they will need for most of their lives.

NJCardFan
02-03-2012, 12:00 AM
Political demonstrations are by their very nature a platform for objection, and are often met with objection by competing voices. To try to gain some advantage in this by dragging along some "catholic school girls" or babies, or old people so you can claim that the opposing voices are monstrous is rather disingenuous.


Name me one time where a conservative group shouted down a liberal trying to speak. Or when a conservative threw a pie at a liberal speaker. Or a conservative who threw glitter on a Democratic presidential candidate. Or when a conservative group threw ANYTHING onto a liberal group. I'll wait.

Hawkgirl
02-03-2012, 12:33 AM
So much of what you "respond" to is in your head. I was amused at shenanigans. Eventually you will figure out that what I don't play games. I pretty much call them as I see them, and in this case I don't think the condom shower was a big deal. Shouting down the speaker, even a papist minion, was wrong... assuming that the abortion group had reserved the space for their exclusive use. If it was simply the public square, then the rules are a little different though even then not exactly a free for all.

Political demonstrations are by their very nature a platform for objection, and are often met with objection by competing voices. To try to gain some advantage in this by dragging along some "catholic school girls" or babies, or old people so you can claim that the opposing voices are monstrous is rather disingenuous.

And since the "well if" argument almost always surfaces : Yes, there are evangelicals with loudspeakers and offensive signs at Gay Pride parades, completely without regard for the fact that there are sensitive people, children, parents, and grandparents at the Pride parade. There are screaming evangelicals who completely disregard that the Gay Pride parade in St Petersburg is a family friendly and largely nonpolitical event of a light nature. It's not nice to have men from Georgia carrying huge signs that say that your parents will burn in hell, die of aids, and god will be pleased by your death- but that's what kids at the Pride parade are visually bombarded with. Should they stay home because of six evangelical jackasses who make their living being obnoxious? No. They learn to ignore the evangelical trash, because it's a skill they will need for most of their lives.

Do you believe the Westboro Baptist church has the right to bash deceased military members at funerals?

Novaheart
02-03-2012, 11:17 AM
Name me one time where a conservative group shouted down a liberal trying to speak. Or when a conservative threw a pie at a liberal speaker. Or a conservative who threw glitter on a Democratic presidential candidate. Or when a conservative group threw ANYTHING onto a liberal group. I'll wait.

You mean other than bombing abortion clinics and gay bars?

Novaheart
02-03-2012, 11:25 AM
Do you believe the Westboro Baptist church has the right to bash deceased military members at funerals?

As I recall, and you may know of some other instance, the Phelps make a point of staying within the law. They stay on public sidewalks, wave signs, and do not to my knowledge actually invade (ie with loud speakers or personally) the space in which the funeral is being held. They stand on the street outside the cemetery and wave their signs at people driving past. It's offensive, but to date I am not aware of the Phelps breaking any laws in this regard.

Do I think they have the right? I'd have to say that they do, as individuals though; I don't buy for a second that they are a church. The First Amendment guarantees protection for offensive speech; it's the only kind which needs protection. There are limits, some of which I approve of and others not so much. But I do believe that public space can be reserved for a private purpose (like a funeral at Arlington) and others can be excluded from that space for the period of time it has been reserved. I do not think that you can draw a ten mile circle around Arlington and deny protesters their First Amendment rights inside such a circle. I also think that Rolling Thunder has an equal right to make life miserable (within the law) for the Phelps as they try to ruin a funeral.

txradioguy
02-03-2012, 12:09 PM
You mean other than bombing abortion clinics and gay bars?

Show me where it was proven their political affiliation was GOP.

txradioguy
02-03-2012, 12:11 PM
As I recall, and you may know of some other instance, the Phelps make a point of staying within the law. They stay on public sidewalks, wave signs, and do not to my knowledge actually invade (ie with loud speakers or personally) the space in which the funeral is being held. They stand on the street outside the cemetery and wave their signs at people driving past. It's offensive, but to date I am not aware of the Phelps breaking any laws in this regard.

Do I think they have the right? I'd have to say that they do, as individuals though; I don't buy for a second that they are a church. The First Amendment guarantees protection for offensive speech; it's the only kind which needs protection. There are limits, some of which I approve of and others not so much. But I do believe that public space can be reserved for a private purpose (like a funeral at Arlington) and others can be excluded from that space for the period of time it has been reserved. I do not think that you can draw a ten mile circle around Arlington and deny protesters their First Amendment rights inside such a circle. I also think that Rolling Thunder has an equal right to make life miserable (within the law) for the Phelps as they try to ruin a funeral.

So you're ok with the premise behind why they protest?

Here let me remind you of that which you are defending:

http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef0133f4b3bc8d970b-800wi

Novaheart
02-03-2012, 01:57 PM
So you're ok with the premise behind why they protest?


You are either unable to comprehend what you read, or you are a moron. Which is it?

Novaheart
02-03-2012, 02:00 PM
Show me where it was proven their political affiliation was GOP.

Once again, you fail to understand the English language- is it your second language? NJ's challenge was not registered republicans or affiliates of the GOP, it was "conservative group". Now, I am not usually so unkind, but if you are going to be consistently stupid, and you seem intent on being so, then I'm going to have to stop responding to you. As we all know, arguing with ignorance is a waste of time. So stop being ignorant, OK? OK!

Odysseus
02-03-2012, 02:05 PM
Once again, you fail to understand the English language- is it your second language? NJ's challenge was not registered republicans or affiliates of the GOP, it was "conservative group". Now, I am not usually so unkind, but if you are going to be consistently stupid, and you seem intent on being so, then I'm going to have to stop responding to you. As we all know, arguing with ignorance is a waste of time. So stop being ignorant, OK? OK!

The bombers of gay bars and abortion clinics are not conservatives.

Novaheart
02-03-2012, 02:29 PM
The bombers of gay bars and abortion clinics are not conservatives.

No true Scotsman...

Novaheart
02-03-2012, 02:33 PM
The bombers of gay bars and abortion clinics are not conservatives.

Leftists are anti-war.
Pacifists are anti-war.
Pacifists oppose all violence.
Leftists oppose all violence.
Anyone who acts violently is not a true leftist.


See how that works?

Hawkgirl
02-03-2012, 02:36 PM
No true Scotsman...


So you can prove it?


You'll also find that most conservatives will not defend these actions. Whereas liberals like you run to the defense of the Westboro and Occupiers "protestors".

Novaheart
02-03-2012, 02:42 PM
You'll also find that most conservatives will not defend these actions. Whereas liberals like you run to the defense of the Westboro and Occupiers "protestors".

Maybe that's because there is a huge difference between standing outside a funeral with obnoxious signs and bombing a building or a part- Ya think?

Do you defend the evangelicals who protest at/inside Gay Pride parades?

Try comparing apples to apples.

Hawkgirl
02-03-2012, 04:13 PM
Maybe that's because there is a huge difference between standing outside a funeral with obnoxious signs and bombing a building or a part- Ya think?

Do you defend the evangelicals who protest at/inside Gay Pride parades?

Try comparing apples to apples.


What about the rights of a family to mourn their loved one in peace?

Seriously Nova, even my liberal coworkers think the Westboro protesters are nutjobs..the fact that you defend them makes me realize your views are even more pathetic than I originally believed. How you can defend these creeps under the guise of "free speech" is disgusting.

NJCardFan
02-03-2012, 07:39 PM
Leftists are anti-war.
Pacifists are anti-war.
Pacifists oppose all violence.
Leftists oppose all violence.
Anyone who acts violently is not a true leftist.


See how that works?

Huh. Then I guess those riots are from warmongers and conservatives? Who'd have thunk it.

txradioguy
02-04-2012, 07:58 AM
Leftists are anti-war.
Pacifists are anti-war.
Pacifists oppose all violence.
Leftists oppose all violence.
Anyone who acts violently is not a true leftist.


See how that works?

Anyone who buys that bull is a true idiot.

txradioguy
02-04-2012, 07:59 AM
Once again, you fail to understand the English language- is it your second language? NJ's challenge was not registered republicans or affiliates of the GOP, it was "conservative group". Now, I am not usually so unkind, but if you are going to be consistently stupid, and you seem intent on being so, then I'm going to have to stop responding to you. As we all know, arguing with ignorance is a waste of time. So stop being ignorant, OK? OK!

What group assclown? Stop responding if you want.

It just will highlight the fact you are making broad generalizations based on nothing more than your own opinion.

You make the claim...link to your proof.

Otherwise you're leading people to believe you're a lying sack of shit.

txradioguy
02-04-2012, 08:00 AM
You are either unable to comprehend what you read, or you are a moron. Which is it?

I comprehend just fine.

I can also tell when you're talking out your ass and spinning like crazy.

Just like now.

txradioguy
02-04-2012, 08:00 AM
No true Scotsman...

Then prove it.

Lanie
02-04-2012, 08:34 AM
No true Scotsman...

Agreed.

Buttholes are on both sides. Get oveeer it.

txradioguy
02-04-2012, 08:36 AM
Agreed.

Buttholes are on both sides. Get oveeer it.

GFYS you moronic Libtard troll.

Lanie
02-04-2012, 08:45 AM
Then prove it.

Okay. What is a conservative?

A conservative isn't necessarily a Republican. Mitt Romney is a Republican and not well accepted in the conservative club.

There are social conservatives and then there are fiscal conservatives. The Republican Party tries to make them come together.

A social conservative is somebody who who believes that abortion should be illegal, gay marriage should be illegal. In some areas, they believe that liquer by the drink should be illegal along with the lottery. What they want is society the way it used to be (except the alcohol, that's almost always been there). They don't want changes that liberals often push for.

A fiscal conservative believes we should have less taxes for social programs. A Libertarian is a fiscal conservative who thinks we should have no taxes for social programs.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's talk about abortion clinic bombers and those who attack gay bars.

They obviously have a problem with homosexuality and abortion. They do not like that people (mostly liberals) are pushing the agenda to accept both and to make them both legal. Therefore, they want a call back to more "traditional" ideas. They do this by committing acts of terrorism.

I just read your response to me and to Nova. Seriously Tx, I don't see how you can be a Christian. Maybe I'm wrong. You can post nativity stories until you're blue in the face. You can talk about God. As long as you go around calling people names and demonizing them, You don't act like a Christian. My former Weslyan preacher (very conservative) would probably like to have a serious talk with you. If you want to talk about one true scotsman, I could actually see my former preacher saying you weren't a Christian at all. Seriously, what type of Christian says to GFY? Also about the priests at my current church. The one that's the most conservative and the most stern would probably look at this thread and say you're not acting like a Christian at all. They'd probably also say that you don't do much for helping the lost find their way back.

Novaheart
02-04-2012, 10:35 AM
What about the rights of a family to mourn their loved one in peace?

Seriously Nova, even my liberal coworkers think the Westboro protesters are nutjobs..the fact that you defend them makes me realize your views are even more pathetic than I originally believed. How you can defend these creeps under the guise of "free speech" is disgusting.

I'm not defending the WBC, I am giving my objective opinion on where their specific behavior stands in the law.

What part of the law do you think they are breaking by standing on a public sidewalk outside the cemetery waving signs at the funeral procession?

How far away should they have to be from the cemetery and what would be the legal basis for making them comply?

Either you believe in the Constitution or you don't. Waving an offensive sign is not "shouting fire". I simply cannot find an exception to the First Amendment which would apply to "God Hates Fags." I understand the frustration surrounding this, but is it honest of you to try to portray my position on this as supporting or condoning the content of the speech of the WBC?

Odysseus
02-04-2012, 11:51 AM
Leftists are anti-war.
No, they are anti-western. They only oppose war when its against leftist causes. They have no problem with violent revolutions (Russian, Chinese, Cuban) or expansionist wars of aggression (North Korea's invasion of South Korea, North Vietnam's invasion of the South). They also only oppose nuclear weapons when they are controlled by western democracies. The same people who demanded a unilateral nuclear freeze in the 80s (the Soviet weapons didn't bother them) are now demanding that we allow Iraq to develop nukes. Your first premise is clearly false.

Pacifists are anti-war.
And yet, they are strangely silent when terrorists kill Israelis or Americans. Leftist pacifists are highly selective in the wars that they oppose.

Pacifists oppose all violence.
Unless it's violence in support of something that they like, in which case they tend to define it out of existence. Thus, an Occupier who throws bricks at police is simply "expressing his right to protest" while a cop who tear gases him after being hit with the brick is escalating.

Leftists oppose all violence.
Unless it's against bankers, employers, the rich, the middle class, the military, Christians, Jews, conservatives, class enemies, reactionary running dogs, people that they call racists, homophobes or any other catchword that has come to mean simply "bad" or anyone else who is between them and the power that they crave.

Anyone who acts violently is not a true leftist.
No, true leftists aren't "acting", they're really violent.


See how that works?
Yep. Do you?

A social conservative is somebody who who believes that abortion should be illegal, gay marriage should be illegal. In some areas, they believe that liquer by the drink should be illegal along with the lottery. What they want is society the way it used to be (except the alcohol, that's almost always been there). They don't want changes that liberals often push for.
Mostly, what social conservatives want is to be left alone. The vast majority of evangelicals were pretty much apolitical until the Carter administration, when he decided that, as part of his creation of the Dept. of Education, all schooling standards would come under federal purview. He specifically went after Christian private schools, trying to deny them their tax exemptions, and using specious claims of segregation as the wedge.

The truth is that the Moral Majority began with a conversation between Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich, a co-founder of the Moral Majority. Weyrich was encouraging Falwell to lead a movement of evangelicals into secular politics. Here's what Weyrich said according to Rice University Sociologist William Martin, author of With God and Our Side and the companion PBS documentary series by the same name:


Paul Weyrich emphatically asserted that, "what galvanized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation." Weyrich explained that while Christians were troubled about abortion, school prayer, and the ERA, they felt able to deal with those on a private basis. They could avoid having abortions, put their children in Christian schools, and run their families the way they wanted to, all without having to be concerned about public policy. But the IRS threat, "enraged the Christian community and they looked upon it as interference from government, and suddenly it dawned on them that they were not going to be able to be left alone to teach their children as they pleased. It was at that moment that conservatives made the linkage between their opposition to government interference and the interests of the evangelical movement, which now saw itself on the defensive and under attack by the government. That was what brought those people into the political process. It was not the other things." (With God on Our Side, p. 173)
In other words, social conservatives wanted to be left alone, but reacted to an attack by liberals, who wouldn't allow them to be. Does that sound like guys who bomb clinics and gay bars?


Now that we have that out of the way, let's talk about abortion clinic bombers and those who attack gay bars.

They obviously have a problem with homosexuality and abortion. They do not like that people (mostly liberals) are pushing the agenda to accept both and to make them both legal. Therefore, they want a call back to more "traditional" ideas. They do this by committing acts of terrorism.
The acid test for whether a terrorist is part of a mainstream movement is seeing how the mainstream reacts to them. For example, CAIR does everything in its power to protect Islamic terrorists, discourages cooperation with law enforcement and provides justifications for their actions. Sinn Fein did the same for the IRA. Hamas started out as the "radical" wing of the PLO. Liberals provide excuses and try to hide the violence, bigotry and outright lunacy of the Occupy movement. These are all obvious demonstrations of the support that the violent extremists receive from their more mainstream sympathizers. Terror groups seek to overthrow what they perceive as corrupt or immoral political or social orders. Conservatives don't want to overthrow the US government, we want to restore it to its Constitutional norms. Contrast this with the goals of CAIR, Sinn Fein and the American left. In each case, they share the goals of their violent extremists fringe,because the fringe and the mainstream are indistinguishable. This is why, Nova's list above notwithstanding, violence is pervasive among leftist causes and groups. The extremists in those cases do the work of the mainstream while providing a an extremist front to contrast the pretense of moderation on the part of their mainstream allies.

Now, do we find this with clinic or bar bombers? No. Conservative groups across the spectrum, from social to paleo, but especially social conservatives, strenuously denounce violent acts, and cooperate with the authorities to bring the perpetrators to justice.

That's the difference.

Hawkgirl
02-04-2012, 12:55 PM
Either you believe in the Constitution or you don't. Waving an offensive sign is not "shouting fire". I simply cannot find an exception to the First Amendment which would apply to "God Hates Fags." I understand the frustration surrounding this, but is it honest of you to try to portray my position on this as supporting or condoning the content of the speech of the WBC?

The first ammendment right was not meant to protect a Hate Group trample the right of others by disrupting funeral services. It is a slap in the face to the intent of free speech. If you don't get that...then there is nothing more to say.

NJCardFan
02-04-2012, 01:08 PM
You mean other than bombing abortion clinics and gay bars?

Oh, you want to lay this game do you? OK, then let's talk about the groups who set fire to new housing developments and who burn car dealerships or who throw blood on people wearing furs. But, as Ody said, here's the fundamental difference. Eric Rudolph is in prison. And those who perpetrate those acts are dismissed from mainstream conservatives and treated as the criminals they are. Now, that said, my questions still stands. Now stop building strawmen and answer the damned question.

Lanie
02-04-2012, 01:17 PM
Mostly, what social conservatives want is to be left alone. The vast majority of evangelicals were pretty much apolitical until the Carter administration, when he decided that, as part of his creation of the Dept. of Education, all schooling standards would come under federal purview. He specifically went after Christian private schools, trying to deny them their tax exemptions, and using specious claims of segregation as the wedge.

I don't think I'd deny them tax exemption, but did you know that they can get funding from the government in some cases? An example would be if a special education student (or more like their parents) found that their Individualized Education Plan was better fulfilled at a private school. That doesn't happen often, but it can happen. Do you think it's fair to want funding and yet want tax exemption? Either you want the government around or you don't. I don't see this to be a good excuse to go nuts on the policy. You can still raise your kids how you see fit, still send them to Christian schools, and still keep them in a bubble in most cases. Heck, people are even trying to get government funding for their kids to go to Christian school. Do these sound like people who want no government? Maybe they were in the 1970s, but not now.


[The acid test for whether a terrorist is part of a mainstream movement is seeing how the mainstream reacts to them. For example, CAIR does everything in its power to protect Islamic terrorists, discourages cooperation with law enforcement and provides justifications for their actions. Sinn Fein did the same for the IRA. Hamas started out as the "radical" wing of the PLO. Liberals provide excuses and try to hide the violence, bigotry and outright lunacy of the Occupy movement. These are all obvious demonstrations of the support that the violent extremists receive from their more mainstream sympathizers. Terror groups seek to overthrow what they perceive as corrupt or immoral political or social orders. Conservatives don't want to overthrow the US government, we want to restore it to its Constitutional norms. Contrast this with the goals of CAIR, Sinn Fein and the American left. In each case, they share the goals of their violent extremists fringe,because the fringe and the mainstream are indistinguishable. This is why, Nova's list above notwithstanding, violence is pervasive among leftist causes and groups. The extremists in those cases do the work of the mainstream while providing a an extremist front to contrast the pretense of moderation on the part of their mainstream allies.


Now, do we find this with clinic or bar bombers? No. Conservative groups across the spectrum, from social to paleo, but especially social conservatives, strenuously denounce violent acts, and cooperate with the authorities to bring the perpetrators to justice.

That's the difference.

I go by the ideology of the criminal, not whether most people in their group agree with them. Believe it or not, most liberals do not agree with the far far left. That doesn't make a leftist extremist any less of a leftist.

Novaheart
02-04-2012, 02:53 PM
The first ammendment right was not meant to protect a Hate Group trample the right of others by disrupting funeral services. It is a slap in the face to the intent of free speech. If you don't get that...then there is nothing more to say.

The problem is your premise. The First Amendment protects the right of free speech for hate groups. So the next question is if the WBC was disrupting a funeral service. What is your case that they disrupted a service? Mind you, we're talking about constitutional rights here, so I am going to be a stickler for the meaning of words used by you. In fact, to save a post I'll state right now:

• Waving signs on a public sidewalk outside the cemetery is not disrupting the service.

•*The reaction of those attending the service, those passing by, or Rolling Thunder is not the responsibility of the WBC. The WBC is not responsible for how you react to what they do, you are.

• To the best of my recollection, the WBC neither employs loudspeakers nor does it holler at the funeral service in progress.


The Supreme Court agrees:

On March 2, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the First Amendment protects Westboro Baptist Church members' hateful speech during funeral protests. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to Albert Snyder, father of slain Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Case opinions
Majority Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan
Concurrence Breyer
Dissent Alito

The First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech. That's what it does. And supporting that principle doesn't mean that I or the ACLU or Justice Scalia agrees with the Phelps, NAMBLA, or the NAZIs in Skokie no matter how many times you say that it does.

Novaheart
02-04-2012, 02:56 PM
Oh, you want to lay this game do you? OK, then let's talk about the groups who set fire to new housing developments and who burn car dealerships or who throw blood on people wearing furs. But, as Ody said, here's the fundamental difference. Eric Rudolph is in prison. And those who perpetrate those acts are dismissed from mainstream conservatives and treated as the criminals they are. Now, that said, my questions still stands. Now stop building strawmen and answer the damned question.

Yeah, we throw people in prison for bombing bars and parks. Tossing condoms, not so often.

JB
02-04-2012, 03:01 PM
Tossing condoms, not so often.Jail? No. But they need to be arrested and charged so that they at least have a simple assault on their record.

If not, it's going to have to come down to street justice and believe me, the condom tossers do not want that.

Odysseus
02-04-2012, 04:58 PM
I don't think I'd deny them tax exemption, but did you know that they can get funding from the government in some cases? An example would be if a special education student (or more like their parents) found that their Individualized Education Plan was better fulfilled at a private school. That doesn't happen often, but it can happen. Do you think it's fair to want funding and yet want tax exemption? Either you want the government around or you don't. I don't see this to be a good excuse to go nuts on the policy. You can still raise your kids how you see fit, still send them to Christian schools, and still keep them in a bubble in most cases. Heck, people are even trying to get government funding for their kids to go to Christian school. Do these sound like people who want no government? Maybe they were in the 1970s, but not now.
You're missing my point. Before Carter, church schools got tax breaks. He tried to eliminate that, because the idea of people educating their kids outside of the government monopoly on schools was anathema to the left, and especially to their unionized education establishment. The evangelicals didn't go looking for a fight, but found themselves under attack, and organized to oppose it. Before that, they were pretty much apolitical. They just wanted to be left alone to raise their kids the way that they saw fit, and then they realized that there was a culture war, and that it had been declared on them.


I go by the ideology of the criminal, not whether most people in their group agree with them. Believe it or not, most liberals do not agree with the far far left. That doesn't make a leftist extremist any less of a leftist.
It's not just the ideology of the criminal, it is how the rest of the community reacts. Nova's argument is that conservatives bomb clinics and gay bars, not that a psychotic fringe does. My point is that, while every movement has a fringe, calling that fringe the mainstream is dishonest when the mainstream want's nothing to do with them. That's the difference between the right and the left. When the Occupiers crap on police cars, riot, assault law-abiding citizens, commit rapes or otherwise act like, well, scum, the mainstream liberal press tells us that they are no different from the Tea Partiers. When the Occupiers make racist statements, and nobody in the movement says anything against them, does the media cover it with the intensity that they looked for, and in some cases fabricated, such incidents among Tea Partiers? Did the Democratic Party denounce the violence, bigotry and idiocy among the Occupiers, or did they embrace them?

That's the difference.

NJCardFan
02-04-2012, 05:02 PM
Yeah, we throw people in prison for bombing bars and parks. Tossing condoms, not so often.

So in other words you can't answer the question. You choose to be an idiot and be snarky because you simply do not have an answer. You've lost the argument. Now go away.

Novaheart
02-04-2012, 10:37 PM
So in other words you can't answer the question. You choose to be an idiot and be snarky because you simply do not have an answer. You've lost the argument. Now go away.

You keep declaring victory, are you emulating Bush II?

Lanie
02-04-2012, 11:15 PM
You're missing my point. Before Carter, church schools got tax breaks. He tried to eliminate that, because the idea of people educating their kids outside of the government monopoly on schools was anathema to the left, and especially to their unionized education establishment. The evangelicals didn't go looking for a fight, but found themselves under attack, and organized to oppose it. Before that, they were pretty much apolitical. They just wanted to be left alone to raise their kids the way that they saw fit, and then they realized that there was a culture war, and that it had been declared on them.

Okay, maybe I'm being a bitch, but I don't really see how taxes are a big deal. People can still send their kids to Christian schools. I'm not saying that taxing religious schools is constitutional. It's just that stuff like this makes me once again think some of the fundamentalists need to have everything. BTW, what were poor fundamentalists who couldn't afford a Christian school supposed to do? Was there no way to raise their own kids? This is sort of making them the eternal victim here.



It's not just the ideology of the criminal, it is how the rest of the community reacts. Nova's argument is that conservatives bomb clinics and gay bars, not that a psychotic fringe does. My point is that, while every movement has a fringe, calling that fringe the mainstream is dishonest when the mainstream want's nothing to do with them. That's the difference between the right and the left. When the Occupiers crap on police cars, riot, assault law-abiding citizens, commit rapes or otherwise act like, well, scum, the mainstream liberal press tells us that they are no different from the Tea Partiers. When the Occupiers make racist statements, and nobody in the movement says anything against them, does the media cover it with the intensity that they looked for, and in some cases fabricated, such incidents among Tea Partiers? Did the Democratic Party denounce the violence, bigotry and idiocy among the Occupiers, or did they embrace them?

That's the difference.

I was in the leftist movements long enough to know stuff like that is condemned and that most liberals try to distance themselves from the fringe.

As for not always denouncing stuff, neither does the right. I could give you a VERY LONG list of all the nasty things said by members of the religious rights against groups of people they don't like. Really hateful stuff. And I NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER hear one social conservative condemn it. NEVER.

Novaheart
02-04-2012, 11:38 PM
Before Carter, church schools got tax breaks. He tried to eliminate that, because the idea of people educating their kids outside of the government monopoly on schools was anathema to the left, and especially to their unionized education establishment.

What effort on Carter's part are you specifically referring to? Which tax breaks are you referring to?

Novaheart
02-04-2012, 11:55 PM
Nova's argument is that conservatives bomb clinics and gay bars, not that a psychotic fringe does.


Actually, NJCardfan asked for "one time" or one example, and I gave it to him, howbeit in a smartassed way.

I'm not sure I would classify everyone who has taken extreme and violent action on conservative beliefs to be psychotic anymore than I would consider the blood-on-furcoats people to be psychotic. Acting with malice is not by definition psychosis. I would however classify them as fringe compared to the Left or Right mainstream.


That's the difference between the right and the left. When the Occupiers crap on police cars, riot, assault law-abiding citizens, commit rapes or otherwise act like, well, scum, the mainstream liberal press tells us that they are no different from the Tea Partiers. When the Occupiers make racist statements, and nobody in the movement says anything against them, does the media cover it with the intensity that they looked for, and in some cases fabricated, such incidents among Tea Partiers? Did the Democratic Party denounce the violence, bigotry and idiocy among the Occupiers, or did they embrace them?

That's the difference.

But here is where your train runs off the track. For the mainstream to denounce the acts of the fringe, then someone has to accuse the mainstream of condoning the acts of the fringe, or someone of standing needs to demand a denouncement. Neither you nor Fox news has such standing. Why would Rachel Maddow be apologetic or chastising of people she has no responsibility for and no affiliation with? She wouldn't. I would no more expect Lawrence O'Donell (I spit on his name) to take responsibility for the whackjobs in Oakland than I would expect Sean Hannity to take responsibility for Eric Rudolph.

Speaking of Eric Rudolph, he did reportedly enjoy a certain amount of public denial in people who agreed with his politics, others who helped him or who simply ignored the fact that he was living amongst them.

NJCardFan
02-05-2012, 01:18 AM
You keep declaring victory, are you emulating Bush II?
Then answer the question. Don't bother, because you can't. Because there is no answer for the question I asked because you've never heard of conservatives acting in this manner and you know it. You're ilk are the most disgusting people on earth and it burns your ears to hear the truth about them. To quote Willy Wonka:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Dshk1XfDc&feature=related

Odysseus
02-05-2012, 01:20 AM
Okay, maybe I'm being a bitch, but I don't really see how taxes are a big deal. People can still send their kids to Christian schools. I'm not saying that taxing religious schools is constitutional. It's just that stuff like this makes me once again think some of the fundamentalists need to have everything. BTW, what were poor fundamentalists who couldn't afford a Christian school supposed to do? Was there no way to raise their own kids? This is sort of making them the eternal victim here.
The tax breaks enabled the schools to function at lower cost. By attempting to eliminate them, Carter was trying to shut down the schools through the power of the IRS.


I was in the leftist movements long enough to know stuff like that is condemned and that most liberals try to distance themselves from the fringe.

As for not always denouncing stuff, neither does the right. I could give you a VERY LONG list of all the nasty things said by members of the religious rights against groups of people they don't like. Really hateful stuff. And I NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER hear one social conservative condemn it. NEVER.
Feel free. Seriously.

What effort on Carter's part are you specifically referring to? Which tax breaks are you referring to?
In 1978, at Carter's direction, the Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines whose sole purpose was to remove the tax-exempt status of Christian schools. The means by which this was to be done involved the use of racial quotas. In August 1978, schools would have to make a special showing to rebut a presumption of racial discrimination unless they had a minority enrollment of 20%.


Actually, NJCardfan asked for "one time" or one example, and I gave it to him, howbeit in a smartassed way.

I'm not sure I would classify everyone who has taken extreme and violent action on conservative beliefs to be psychotic anymore than I would consider the blood-on-furcoats people to be psychotic. Acting with malice is not by definition psychosis. I would however classify them as fringe compared to the Left or Right mainstream.

But here is where your train runs off the track. For the mainstream to denounce the acts of the fringe, then someone has to accuse the mainstream of condoning the acts of the fringe, or someone of standing needs to demand a denouncement. Neither you nor Fox news has such standing. Why would Rachel Maddow be apologetic or chastising of people she has no responsibility for and no affiliation with? She wouldn't. I would no more expect Lawrence O'Donell (I spit on his name) to take responsibility for the whackjobs in Oakland than I would expect Sean Hannity to take responsibility for Eric Rudolph.
How about Dylan Ratigan, also of MSNBC? Ratigan, who was supposedly covering OWS as an "objective" observer, was providing them with guidance on how to craft their message and issue their demands. See below for an example of his journalistic observations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8EPnWjoHUE&feature=player_embedded

So, given that Dylan Ratigan, a prominent on-air personality for MSNBC, has an affiliation with OWS, in fact, since he has been colluding with the people that he covers, without any consequences from management, I'd say that Ratigan ought to be held accountable for their conduct, and MSNBC needs to be questioned about whether it is an acceptable practice for its talking heads to coach news makers in order to slant the news. As forRachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Ed Schultz and the rest of them, I'd certainly like to know if they consider their colleague's conduct to be an example of unbiased journalism.


Speaking of Eric Rudolph, he did reportedly enjoy a certain amount of public denial in people who agreed with his politics, others who helped him or who simply ignored the fact that he was living amongst them.

And just how many people are we talking about here? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? The point is that when you were asked to identify violence perpetrated by conservatives, you cited abortion clinic bombings and gay bar bombings. And yet, when challenged, you cannot connect Rudolph to any mainstream conservative group, even a pro-life group.

Novaheart
02-05-2012, 10:35 AM
....... because you've never heard of conservatives acting in this manner and you know it.

You've already make clear your intent to disclaim from conservatism any example given, ie the No True Scotsman routine. A devout Christian foe of Democrats, Gay rights, and abortions apparently ceases to be a conservative for your argumentative purposes when he's an actual example of criminal expression of politics.

Novaheart
02-05-2012, 10:47 AM
In 1978, at Carter's direction, the Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines whose sole purpose was to remove the tax-exempt status of Christian schools. The means by which this was to be done involved the use of racial quotas. In August 1978, schools would have to make a special showing to rebut a presumption of racial discrimination unless they had a minority enrollment of 20%.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785

According to this, Carter tried to revoke the tax exempt status of segregated schools such as Bob Jones University. That's probably why I wasn't connecting to how you presented it, because the idea that Carter was attacking Christian schools for being Christian would be on its face absurd. Carter wasn't using race to destroy Christian schools, he was using tax exempt status to attack racism.

It's an interesting article, by the way.

Odysseus
02-05-2012, 11:43 AM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5502785

According to this, Carter tried to revoke the tax exempt status of segregated schools such as Bob Jones University. That's probably why I wasn't connecting to how you presented it, because the idea that Carter was attacking Christian schools for being Christian would be on its face absurd. Carter wasn't using race to destroy Christian schools, he was using tax exempt status to attack racism.

It's an interesting article, by the way.

It is an interesting article, except that it omits quite a bit (but then, I wouldn't expect NPR to provide the whole story, since it puts the left in a very bad light). Carter didn't just go after Bob Jones U. The president who gave us the massive federal education bureaucracy wasn't about to allow an independent system of education to compete with his vision of a federal monopoly on schools. The IRS guidance applied to all religious schools founded in the previous two decades (i.e., since the baby boom), and put the burden of proof on them. Faced with the costs of legal fees, proving compliance and losing control of their admissions policies, or the loss of their tax exempt status, the schools would have been forced to close. That's why other religious groups also opposed the guidance.

In other words, under the pretext of going after one university, Carter used the IRS to threaten all religious schools and impose higher costs and a stigma of racism.

Lanie
02-05-2012, 03:08 PM
Feel free. Seriously.

.

Okay. No time to look for the best sources, so I apologize in advance.

While prolifers will condemn abortion violence on the surface, I haven't heard them condemn stuff that one of the main leaders of the movement said.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Randall_Terry


"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you... I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." August 16, 1993.
.

Want to bet some money on the idea that somebody is going to come into this thread and justify that comment?

Not all of these from the below quote are from the religious right, but they are conservative.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/09/10/18-outrageous-christian-right-quotes.html

“Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women, and children around the world.”
—former Sen. Fred Thompson during the 2008 presidential race

“I’m a radical! I’m a real extremist. I don’t want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!”
—Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), in 2004

“How did [the Holocaust] happen ? Because God allowed it to happen… because God said, ‘My top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.’”
—Rev. John Hagee in 2006, aired on YouTube in 2008.

“I paint my face and travel at night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag.”
—Ralph Reed on his prowess as a political operative for the Christian right wing in 1991.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - 1992 Iowa fundraising letter opposing a state equal-rights amendment ("Equal Rights Initiative in Iowa Attacked", Washington Post, 23 August 1992); it is sometimes claimed that this statement appeared in Robertson's 1992 GOP convention speech, but this is not the case (see also transcript)

"If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality." [2]

[Planned Parenthood] "is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism – everything that the Bible condemns." (The 700 Club, variously dated as 9 Apr. 1991 or 14 Jan. 1991).

Lanie note: We can't have them doing mammograms or it might screw up some of that hateful perspective.

"The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers."

Lanie note: Excuuuuuse me? Did we or did we not use the Christian bible to condone slavery in the 1800s? He needs to shut up.

"The media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" [5]

Hey Ody, what do you think about the above quote? I love the quote below. It applies to some people here I'm sure. Any Methodists here?

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

Lanie
02-05-2012, 03:09 PM
Ody, cont...

Time for some dumb quotes from Falwell

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell


Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU, and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged"? In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time — calling upon God.


On responses to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, as quoted in AANEWS #958 (14 September 2001)
And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen.


The true Negro does not want integration... He realizes his potential is far better among his own race... It will destroy our race eventually... In one northern city, a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife... It boils down to whether we are going to take God's Word as final.
Quoted in "The Nation's Best Bible College Gets Low Grades on Racial Diversity" The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, vol. 31 (2001), pp.43-45

Did he seriously use that word in 2001?


Since Jesus came to the earth the first time 2,000 years ago as a Jewish male, many evangelicals believe the Antichrist will, by necessity, be a Jewish male. This belief is 2,000 years old and has no anti-Semitic roots. This is simply historic and prophetic orthodox Christian doctrine that many theologians, Christian and non-Christian, have understood for two millennia.
Quoted in "Religion, Politics a Potent Mix for Jerry Falwell" by Steve Inskeep in Morning Edition on NPR (30 June 2006)




Just remember the left is the only ones with anti-semitism in it. :rolleyes:

Not part of the religious right, but here's your side's beloved Anne Coulter. Not only do the right not condemn her, but they endorse her.


I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood' to be flogged publicly.
Commentary on MSNBC (22 March 1997), as quoted in "The Wisdom of Ann Coulter" in The Washington Monthly (October 2001)

The fact that she pointed specifically to minors (as if they're the majority of the problem, which statistically speaking, they're NOT) tells me she has a prejudice toward younger people. Not only do conservatives do nothing about this, I've often found that prejudice against younger people is embraced where I'm at. Nevermind that adults do most of the crime. Let's make examples out of kids.


I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.
Remarks on Politically Incorrect (26 February 2001)


God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."

God did not tell us to "rape it" or abuse the earth in any way. That doesn't mean believe in global warming, but she has a very distorted view about the bible.


Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

And she has room to talk, how?


Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims — at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours.
How are we to distinguish the peaceful Muslims from the fanatical, homicidal Muslims about to murder thousands of our fellow citizens?
"Future widows of America: Write your congressman" in Jewish World Review (28 September 2001)


My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.
Deliberately provacative remark, as quoted in "Coultergeist" by George Gurley at The Observer (25 August 2002), the interviewer then told her that she should be careful, and she agreed: "You’re right, after 9/11 I shouldn’t say that." Later, in "An Interview With Ann Coulter" by John Hawkins (26 June 2003), she also stated:
McVeigh quote. Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."

Can anybody really use the excuse that it was just "satire" at this point? BTW, her "jokes" are as funny as Bill Maher's meaning they're not funny at all. They're just vile, and then you all support her wondering why people won't see your point of view.

[edit]Slander : Liberal Lies About the American Right (2002)
ISBN 1400046610

Much of the left's hate speech bears greater similarity to a psychological disorder than to standard political discourse. The hatred is blinding, producing logical contradictions that would be impossible to sustain were it not for the central element faith plays in the left's new religion.
Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now.
p. 5

Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition.
p. 194




Okay, I can't go on anymore. I'm getting too angry (much to some of your colleagues delight, I'm sure).

Ody, neither you or anybody else on this board has ANY RIGHT to talk to me about how the left is supposedly the only one who hates. Your side has no right.

Novaheart
02-05-2012, 05:28 PM
It is an interesting article, except that it omits quite a bit (but then, I wouldn't expect NPR to provide the whole story, since it puts the left in a very bad light). Carter didn't just go after Bob Jones U. The president who gave us the massive federal education bureaucracy wasn't about to allow an independent system of education to compete with his vision of a federal monopoly on schools. The IRS guidance applied to all religious schools founded in the previous two decades (i.e., since the baby boom), and put the burden of proof on them. Faced with the costs of legal fees, proving compliance and losing control of their admissions policies, or the loss of their tax exempt status, the schools would have been forced to close. That's why other religious groups also opposed the guidance.

In other words, under the pretext of going after one university, Carter used the IRS to threaten all religious schools and impose higher costs and a stigma of racism.


I"m not really sure what "taking away their tax exempt status" would actually mean in real dollars. Most of these schools have institutional exemptions from property tax. Their employees get taxed on their salaries anyway. The schools are generally operated as non-profits and are owned either by actual churches or nonprofit foundations which are run by churches. Sounds like a lot of noise to me.

Objectively though, a reasonable person might have associated the explosion of private schools operating under church auspices with racism given the timing of the opening of those schools relative to the judicial crackdown on desegregation workarounds in the public school system. In 1970 in the DC area, neither money nor a crowbar could get most kids into even a less than prestigious Catholic or Episcopal school because there was a mad dash for the private schools. Then it seemed like the Baptists opened up dozens of schools almost overnight.

Odysseus
02-06-2012, 01:14 AM
I"m not really sure what "taking away their tax exempt status" would actually mean in real dollars. Most of these schools have institutional exemptions from property tax. Their employees get taxed on their salaries anyway. The schools are generally operated as non-profits and are owned either by actual churches or nonprofit foundations which are run by churches. Sounds like a lot of noise to me.
It meant just that. It meant withdrawing the non-profit status, the property tax exemptions, the whole ball of wax, as it were. It wasn't "just a lot of noise", it was a massive power grab, and it galvanized opposition and created the evangelical political movement.


Objectively though, a reasonable person might have associated the explosion of private schools operating under church auspices with racism given the timing of the opening of those schools relative to the judicial crackdown on desegregation workarounds in the public school system. In 1970 in the DC area, neither money nor a crowbar could get most kids into even a less than prestigious Catholic or Episcopal school because there was a mad dash for the private schools. Then it seemed like the Baptists opened up dozens of schools almost overnight.
Whereas an unreasonable person(i.e., anyone not making a kneejerk assumption that any action that has an outcome that he dislikes is motivated by racism, i.e., not a liberal) might recognize that the collapsing standards in public schools in the 70s, the increasingly incidence of violence and the increase in urban populations combined to create more demand for private schools, and the supply increased as churches opened up schools to satisfy the increased demand. Let's also remember that this was the same period in which the courts ruled prayer in schools to be unconstitutional, which is another reason that the Baptists decided to opt out. However, a reasonable, objective person such as yourself would not find these arguments convincing, and would therefore conclude that racism is the sole motivation for putting kids into private schools in urban areas, although, according to a study done a few years ago, public school teachers were twice as likely as the general population to put their children in private schools.


Public schools no place for teachers' kids
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/22/20040922-122847-5968r/print/

More than 25 percent of public school teachers in Washington and Baltimore send their children to private schools, a new study reports.

Nationwide, public school teachers are almost twice as likely as other parents to choose private schools for their own children, the study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found. More than 1 in 5 public school teachers said their children attend private schools.

In Washington (28 percent), Baltimore (35 percent) and 16 other major cities, the figure is more than 1 in 4. In some cities, nearly half of the children of public school teachers have abandoned public schools.

In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.

Michael Pons, spokesman for the National Education Association, the 2.7-million-member public school union, declined a request for comment on the study's findings. The American Federation of Teachers also declined to comment.

Public school teachers told the Fordham Institute's surveyors that private and religious schools impose greater discipline, achieve higher academic achievement and offer overall a better atmosphere.

"Across the states, 12.2 percent of all families -- urban, rural and suburban -- send their children to private schools," says the report, based on 2000 census data.

"Public education in many of our large cities is broken," the surveyors conclude. "The fix? Choice, in part, to be sure."

Public school teachers in Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Chicago, Rochester, N.Y., and Baltimore registered the most dissatisfaction with the schools in which they teach.

"These results do not surprise most practicing teachers to whom we speak," say report authors Denis P. Doyle, founder of a school improvement company, SchoolNet Inc.; Brian Diepold, an economics graduate student at American University; and David A. DeSchryver, editor of the Doyle Report, an online education policy and technology journal.

Who'd have thought that all of those good, liberal, unionized public school teachers were racists?:rolleyes:

NJCardFan
02-06-2012, 03:05 AM
You've already make clear your intent to disclaim from conservatism any example given, ie the No True Scotsman routine. A devout Christian foe of Democrats, Gay rights, and abortions apparently ceases to be a conservative for your argumentative purposes when he's an actual example of criminal expression of politics.

No because I'm smart enough to know that there are knuckleheads on the right, however, you'd have to look long and hard before you found an example of conservative behavior that rivaled liberal behavior. I've never heard about a conservative throwing a pie at a liberal pundit. Never heard about a liberal speaker getting shouted down by conservatives. I never heard of a conservative throwing glitter on a Democrat presidential candidate. However, I can spend 1/2 hour listing actions by liberals and still not scratch the surface. Again, you lose.

Novaheart
02-06-2012, 11:24 AM
........... might recognize that the collapsing standards in public schools in the 70s, the increasingly incidence of violence and the increase in urban populations combined to create more demand for private schools, and the supply increased as churches opened up schools to satisfy the increased demand.

What you have written here is also true. And there is another component: churches were dying in the 1970's and the ones which would survive (other than those with major endowments) had to come up with new ways to use their buildings and spend their money to attract more people and money.

It's kind of amusing though, because while creating "safe" schools for largely white people, many of these same churches also geared up to accept daycare vouchers from the government and had a decidedly different demographic in the kindergarten than the grade school.

I often find common perceptions about Catholic schools to be amusing but ignorant. In many places, the Catholic schools were staffed by nuns and priests who live communally and had/have some pretty liberal politics. My elementary school was just such a place. Our student body was actually more diverse than the public school by standard measures, and had a special relationship with the synagogue down the street because it was the only private school where the Jews (maybe two dozen families in the entire town) would send their kids. Our youth priest was a hippie and the Monsignor was a social mover and shaker in our rural area where Catholics were a minority.

AmPat
02-06-2012, 11:38 AM
A condom weighs 2 grams, considerably less than the beads little Maria got hit in the head with at the St Patrick's Day Parade. You're so cute when you are desperate.

I'm thinking the condom that goes over a large Dick like you weighs considerably more.;)

Odysseus
02-06-2012, 12:27 PM
What you have written here is also true. And there is another component: churches were dying in the 1970's and the ones which would survive (other than those with major endowments) had to come up with new ways to use their buildings and spend their money to attract more people and money.

It's kind of amusing though, because while creating "safe" schools for largely white people, many of these same churches also geared up to accept daycare vouchers from the government and had a decidedly different demographic in the kindergarten than the grade school.
When did the daycare vouchers come into being?
Then-NYC Mayor Ed Koch once got into an argument with the head of schools for the Cathoic archdiocese of NYC, when he claimed that the Catholic schools got better results because they started with better students, and didn't have to deal with the same issues as the public schools. He challenged him to accept a group of the city's most incorrigible kids and then tell him how they performed. The Catholic rep accepted on the spot, and Koch backed down. For years, they'd try to get him to pony up the kids so that they could work with them, but the city refused and pretended that the challenge had never been offered.


I often find common perceptions about Catholic schools to be amusing but ignorant. In many places, the Catholic schools were staffed by nuns and priests who live communally and had/have some pretty liberal politics. My elementary school was just such a place. Our student body was actually more diverse than the public school by standard measures, and had a special relationship with the synagogue down the street because it was the only private school where the Jews (maybe two dozen families in the entire town) would send their kids. Our youth priest was a hippie and the Monsignor was a social mover and shaker in our rural area where Catholics were a minority.

Catholic schools vary widely throughout the US. In NYC, my experience with Catholic schoolkids was mostly avoiding them when they'd gotten hopped up by the local priest, who was a raving antisemite. Actually, it was mostly the Irish Catholic kids who had to be avoided. The Italians were pretty easygoing.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 12:39 PM
When did the daycare vouchers come into being?
Then-NYC Mayor Ed Koch once got into an argument with the head of schools for the Cathoic archdiocese of NYC, when he claimed that the Catholic schools got better results because they started with better students, and didn't have to deal with the same issues as the public schools. He challenged him to accept a group of the city's most incorrigible kids and then tell him how they performed. The Catholic rep accepted on the spot, and Koch backed down. For years, they'd try to get him to pony up the kids so that they could work with them, but the city refused and pretended that the challenge had never been offered.



Catholic schools vary widely throughout the US. In NYC, my experience with Catholic schoolkids was mostly avoiding them when they'd gotten hopped up by the local priest, who was a raving antisemite. Actually, it was mostly the Irish Catholic kids who had to be avoided. The Italians were pretty easygoing.

Given his sudden hatred for the Catholic Church...you'd think he was letting TNO use his screen name.

Rockntractor
02-06-2012, 12:44 PM
Given his sudden hatred for the Catholic Church...you'd think he was letting TNO use his screen name.

Lib trolls kind of run together after awhile, you could interchange them on almost any topic.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 12:45 PM
Lib trolls kind of run together after awhile, you could interchange them on almost any topic.

Yeah they try to pretend to act rational and logical to gain "fred" on a forum like this...but they can only pretend so long before they revert to form.

He's just the latest example.

Hawkgirl
02-06-2012, 01:18 PM
Catholic schools vary widely throughout the US. In NYC, my experience with Catholic schoolkids was mostly avoiding them when they'd gotten hopped up by the local priest, who was a raving antisemite. Actually, it was mostly the Irish Catholic kids who had to be avoided. The Italians were pretty easygoing.

Why thank you Ody! lol

I went to catholic elementary, high school and college. I will be enrolling my daughter in catholic schools as well. While the religion component is important to me somewhat, it's the discipline, good study habits and moral values that sway me towards them. Florida public schools are probably the worst in the country. I have a brand spankin' new school built by a local developer down the block....but I won't have my daughter become an FCAT robot.

During a high school religion class I recall discussing other religions...we spent ONE hour in four years discussing other religions. The catholic schools I went to were concerned in teaching Christianity through our Catechism and didn't much dwell on other religions. This is the extent of learning of other religions...
Jews-don't believe in Jesus...Hindu's have a million gods, Muslims think Allah is God, Buddhism have no god, they just believe in Kharma...:D

Rockntractor
02-06-2012, 03:15 PM
Yeah they try to pretend to act rational and logical to gain "fred" on a forum like this...but they can only pretend so long before they revert to form.

He's just the latest example.

I have to come clean,Nova is not an actual human poster, he is software. We created the NOVA program (Notoriously, Obnoxious, Vegan, Asshole) to fill our need for a troll to argue with us and to direct our conservative hate toward. We added every possible detestible attribute we could to NOVA but unfortunatly we overdid it and the program grew into our software like a fungus, it seams to have infused itself into the very core of our software, gawd help us all !:eek:

Odysseus
02-06-2012, 04:21 PM
Sorry, Lanie, but I missed this my first time around. I'm not ignoring it.

Okay. No time to look for the best sources, so I apologize in advance.

While prolifers will condemn abortion violence on the surface, I haven't heard them condemn stuff that one of the main leaders of the movement said.

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you... I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." August 16, 1993.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Randall_Terry

Want to bet some money on the idea that somebody is going to come into this thread and justify that comment?

That's pretty much the same take as the Sharia types have. We've found our Taliban wing. But, will anyone here defend a conquest of America that eliminates all other faiths, even by Christians? Doubtful.
Not all of these from the below quote are from the religious right, but they are conservative.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/09/10/18-outrageous-christian-right-quotes.html

“Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women, and children around the world.”
—former Sen. Fred Thompson during the 2008 presidential race
Thompson was talking about Muslim terrorists who had been granted visas, or were coming in with the waves of illegals. His point was that the lack of border security that allowed in twelve million illegals also allowed in quite a few terrorists. He wasn't wrong.


“I’m a radical! I’m a real extremist. I don’t want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!”
—Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), in 2004
That's hyperbole, however, since I'm in the area, I'll check to see if he's sharpening any pikes or if any judges are missing.


“How did [the Holocaust] happen ? Because God allowed it to happen… because God said, ‘My top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.’”
—Rev. John Hagee in 2006, aired on YouTube in 2008.
Uh, yeah, that's out there, but who is John Hagee?


“I paint my face and travel at night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag.”
—Ralph Reed on his prowess as a political operative for the Christian right wing in 1991.
Hyperbole, again. He wasn't talking about actual wet work.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - 1992 Iowa fundraising letter opposing a state equal-rights amendment ("Equal Rights Initiative in Iowa Attacked", Washington Post, 23 August 1992); it is sometimes claimed that this statement appeared in Robertson's 1992 GOP convention speech, but this is not the case (see also transcript)
Uh, I hate to tell you this, but for a lot of feminists, that is the agenda (okay, maybe not the witchcraft). Much of the feminist literature of the 70s talked about how marriage enslaved women and encouraged familial breakup. Abortion on demand is pretty much the only thing that a lot of feminists care about. It's certainly the litmus test for whether or not they consider someone a feminist or not, just ask Sarah Palin. The witchcraft thing is pretty bizarre, although there do seem to be a lot of feminist Wiccans, but I'll give you that one. Destroying capitalism? How many feminist organizations consider themselves socialist as well? NOW, which is the largest, was founded by Betty Friedan, a Marxist. Many of their causes are thinly veiled attacks on markets (such as pay equity). And lesbians? Again, NOW's membership was polled a few years ago, and it turned out that a majority of the members were self-identified lesbians. This, BTW, explains a lot of NOW's hostility to men and any institution in which men play a prominent part, such as marriage. So, yeah, he's not saying anything that isn't true of at least a significant portion of feminism.


"If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality." [2]
Yeah, that's out there.


[Planned Parenthood] "is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism – everything that the Bible condemns." (The 700 Club, variously dated as 9 Apr. 1991 or 14 Jan. 1991).

Lanie note: We can't have them doing mammograms or it might screw up some of that hateful perspective. [/QUOTE]
That's okay. They don't do mammograms. That's why Komen originally cut off their grant, because Planned Parenthood only refers women to other places for mammograms. They only do abortions. As for the rest, it's inflammatory, but the sex education materials that Planned Parenthood provides schools does teach sexual conduct outside of marriage (fornication) and does discuss homosexuality. I don't recall bestiality in the mix, but it's been a long time since high school, and the curriculum may have changed. :D


"The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers."

Lanie note: Excuuuuuse me? Did we or did we not use the Christian bible to condone slavery in the 1800s? He needs to shut up.
And abolitionists used it to condemn slavery. Christians were on both sides of the issue. OTOH, the exportation of African slaves began with Muslim conquests of African kingdoms. Initially, they were marched to the Middle East (under conditions in which the majority died en route), but when the Europeans came looking, they were perfectly happy to sell to them, too. Also, the slave trade continued among Arabs well into the 20th century. Saudi Arabia didn't sign the UN convention against slavery until the 1960s, and most Arab states still permitted it, unofficially. Today, Sudan continues the practice. So, yeah, he's right on this one.


"The media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" [5]

Hey Ody, what do you think about the above quote?
We've talked quite a bit about my take on Muslims, Sharia and the Constitution. He's right about them, to the extent that they reject the Judeo-Christian values that America was founded on. I think that he's wrong about Hindus, but regardless, he believes what he believes. But do conservatives believe it?


I love the quote below. It applies to some people here I'm sure. Any Methodists here?

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." -- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

Well, according to Homeland Security, they are likely to be terrorists. :D

Seriously, Falwell and Robertson have been relegated to the fringes of conservatism for years. In fact, when Robertson made those statements, the rest of the conservative movement disowned him and he ended up pulling the plug on his campaign after a few primaries. He hasn't been part of the conservative movement for years, precisely because of the inflammatory comments that he's made. The Ralph Reed quote and the quote from Coburn's staffer were hyperbole, and neither of them holds an elective office. OTOH, elected Democrats routinely say far more outrageous things.

Why thank you Ody! lol
The Italian kids, as I said, were pretty laid back. The Irish kids were always looking for a fight. I actually dated a couple of Italian girls, and their brothers had no problem with it as long as I helped with their math homework. :D

JB
02-06-2012, 09:15 PM
Oh man. This is epic. Old Bridget and new Ody in a war of words. Let me clear my calendar and get my reading glasses. :eek:

Hawkgirl
02-06-2012, 10:15 PM
:popcorn:

Now we have an even 100 posts.:D

NJCardFan
02-06-2012, 11:16 PM
Sorry, Lanie, but I missed this my first time around. I'm not ignoring it...<snip>



You have to forgive Lanie. With her, as with a cast majority of Liberals, if one Christian thinks this way then they all do. You know as well as I do that liberals can't function unless they put everyone in groups. This is why a black person can't stray from the plantation and be conservative. In her worldview, there are no individuals, just groups of people who are supposed to all have a hive mind of each other. Of course, like nova, she fails to point out ant evidence that any conservative group ever behaved in public the way liberal groups do. All Lanie is trying to do is justify OWS abhorrent behavior by pointing out that some conservatives have said mean things at one time or another. Just points out the childishness of the liberal mind. "Well, they did it!"


:popcorn:

Now we have an even 100 posts.:D
And I just pushed us into room 101. :)

Rockntractor
02-06-2012, 11:20 PM
And I just pushed us into room 101. :)

Actually you were 102.

txradioguy
02-07-2012, 01:27 AM
Oh man. This is epic. Old Bridget and new Ody in a war of words. Let me clear my calendar and get my reading glasses. :eek:

It's epic. But in the end Bridget won't have learned a thing and Ody will have wasted his time on her.

Lanie
02-07-2012, 08:54 AM
Oh man. This is epic. Old Bridget and new Ody in a war of words. Let me clear my calendar and get my reading glasses. :eek:

Unfortunately, I don't have the time on my hands I used to have. :D

Ody, I'll get to you later.

Hawkgirl
02-07-2012, 09:10 AM
I have to come clean,Nova is not an actual human poster, he is software. We created the NOVA program (Notoriously, Obnoxious, Vegan, Asshole) to fill our need for a troll to argue with us and to direct our conservative hate toward. We added every possible detestible attribute we could to NOVA but unfortunatly we overdid it and the program grew into our software like a fungus, it seams to have infused itself into the very core of our software, gawd help us all !:eek:


:rotfl:
:applause:

The NOVA program became self-aware in 2001. Efforts have been made to thwart it's goal, but with help from the Rainbow Coalition, it has made advances despite opposition from the Human race. One day, it will be destroyed....{{{music from the Terminator}}

Odysseus
02-07-2012, 09:11 AM
Unfortunately, I don't have the time on my hands I used to have. :D

Ody, I'll get to you later.

I'll be here. :D

Novaheart
02-07-2012, 12:34 PM
Why thank you Ody! lol

I went to catholic elementary, high school and college. I will be enrolling my daughter in catholic schools as well. While the religion component is important to me somewhat, it's the discipline, good study habits and moral values that sway me towards them. Florida public schools are probably the worst in the country. I have a brand spankin' new school built by a local developer down the block....but I won't have my daughter become an FCAT robot.

During a high school religion class I recall discussing other religions...we spent ONE hour in four years discussing other religions. The catholic schools I went to were concerned in teaching Christianity through our Catechism and didn't much dwell on other religions. This is the extent of learning of other religions...
Jews-don't believe in Jesus...Hindu's have a million gods, Muslims think Allah is God, Buddhism have no god, they just believe in Kharma...:D

I went to Catholic school in the late sixties. The school was actually very careful about religious bias. We had religion class, mass on Wednesday (optional for non-catholics but I can't recall anyone not attending) and prayers here and there, like when an ambulance would go by. I can't recall anything approaching "Catholicism is the only true church." and yet, I did somehow come away from it or my own Episcopal church with the impression that Jews and Asbury Methodists were going to Hell.

Novaheart
02-07-2012, 12:36 PM
:rotfl:
:applause:

The NOVA program became self-aware in 2001. Efforts have been made to thwart it's goal, but with help from the Rainbow Coalition, it has made advances despite opposition from the Human race. One day, it will be destroyed....{{{music from the Terminator}}

http://fanaticmodz.com/uploads/avatars/avatar_28604.jpg?dateline=1322952898

When logic is the prime directive.

Lanie
02-07-2012, 01:02 PM
Sorry, Lanie, but I missed this my first time around. I'm not ignoring it.


Thompson was talking about Muslim terrorists who had been granted visas, or were coming in with the waves of illegals. His point was that the lack of border security that allowed in twelve million illegals also allowed in quite a few terrorists. He wasn't wrong.

He should be more clear if that's what he means.





Some of the things liberals say could be considered hyperbowl. In any case, it's still hate.


[QUOTE=Odysseus;481032Uh, yeah, that's out there, but who is John Hagee? ]

Seriously? :D





A lot of feminists from the mainstream movement do hold certain ideas about what should be the law. However, that's NOT THE ONLY thing they're about, and it's certainly not something they're trying to make everybody do. I don't know any feminists trying to make people leave their husband, have an abortion, or become a lesbian. That's beyond hateful and ridiculous. They do take up for the rights of those people, but they're not trying to push people into doing that. Some feminists do think you need to be pro-choice to be a feminist. I don't agree with that. I do think they need to reprioritize in the mainstream feminist movement in the US. However, if you look on NOW's website, those are not the only focuses.

http://www.now.org/

This is their page on economic issues.

http://www.now.org/issues/economic/

violence

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/

sex discrimination

http://www.now.org/issues/constitution/index.html

Now, what conservative groups are there who speak out on these issues?

They're also talking about the violence against women act, the pope and birth control, sexist stereotypes to the toy aisle, how Obama is failing women in the birth control subject (they insulted a Democrat? Whaaat?),


[QUOTE]That's okay. They don't do mammograms. That's why Komen originally cut off their grant, because Planned Parenthood only refers women to other places for mammograms. They only do abortions. As for the rest, it's inflammatory, but the sex education materials that Planned Parenthood provides schools does teach sexual conduct outside of marriage (fornication) and does discuss homosexuality. I don't recall bestiality in the mix, but it's been a long time since high school, and the curriculum may have changed. :D

Planned Parenthood's services.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/womens-health/mammogram-21195.htm

It speaks about a mammogram. Another area speaks about breast exams.

Here are a list of their other services (not just abortion).

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/




And abolitionists used it to condemn slavery. Christians were on both sides of the issue. OTOH, the exportation of African slaves began with Muslim conquests of African kingdoms. Initially, they were marched to the Middle East (under conditions in which the majority died en route), but when the Europeans came looking, they were perfectly happy to sell to them, too. Also, the slave trade continued among Arabs well into the 20th century. Saudi Arabia didn't sign the UN convention against slavery until the 1960s, and most Arab states still permitted it, unofficially. Today, Sudan continues the practice. So, yeah, he's right on this one.

The point is Christians don't have a right to talk about slavery in the 1800s. They were guilty too.



We've talked quite a bit about my take on Muslims, Sharia and the Constitution. He's right about them, to the extent that they reject the Judeo-Christian values that America was founded on. I think that he's wrong about Hindus, but regardless, he believes what he believes. But do conservatives believe it?

What do you think about the idea that atheists shouldn't run?


Well, according to Homeland Security, they are likely to be terrorists. :D

Oh my. :D


Seriously, Falwell and Robertson have been relegated to the fringes of conservatism for years. In fact, when Robertson made those statements, the rest of the conservative movement disowned him and he ended up pulling the plug on his campaign after a few primaries. He hasn't been part of the conservative movement for years, precisely because of the inflammatory comments that he's made. The Ralph Reed quote and the quote from Coburn's staffer were hyperbole, and neither of them holds an elective office. OTOH, elected Democrats routinely say far more outrageous things.

The Italian kids, as I said, were pretty laid back. The Irish kids were always looking for a fight. I actually dated a couple of Italian girls, and their brothers had no problem with it as long as I helped with their math homework. :D

If they're considered the fringe and not part of the movement, then why do they still have so much power? Why do a lot of them still get funding? Also, I've never heard the condemnation for myself. I've actually heard ideas endorsing them. Remember the crap about how Haiti got struck because their ancesters were witches? There was a woman in my town asking for prayers for them to turn from this. So I don't see the condemnation you see.

Hawkgirl
02-07-2012, 05:33 PM
I went to Catholic school in the late sixties. The school was actually very careful about religious bias. We had religion class, mass on Wednesday (optional for non-catholics but I can't recall anyone not attending) and prayers here and there, like when an ambulance would go by. I can't recall anything approaching "Catholicism is the only true church." and yet, I did somehow come away from it or my own Episcopal church with the impression that Jews and Asbury Methodists were going to Hell.


Other religions weren't even discussed in my elementary..and if they were, I have no recollection of it. I went to elementary in the late 70's, early 80's. I recall it strange if you were christian but not a Catholic. It seems the catholic schools back then were more prejudiced against other Christian sects than they were Judiasm or something else. I recall the horror on the kids faces when we learned those Protestant priests could marry!! Oh the horror! lol

I'm not making fun, btw...I'm just reminiscining. I still think the education in parochial schools are superior than public...and that's what counts.