Children are just commodities in the liberal culture.

[lilpixieofterror]

Now I'm even more curious. What have either or both of them done that's "loony"? I've seen them both be regularly accused of failing to stand up for left-wing values, and selling-out to corporate lobbying and compromising too readily with Republican/corporate positions in negotiations.

You mean beyond your claims that it should be legal to murder 3 month old babies? That is about as evil as you can get and why you should be driven on this issue, until you recant and admit how disgusting and outright evil it is.

[Starlight]

Lemme see if I can find the video of the loony left idiots at the Texas State Capitol yelling "hail Satan" and cussing at the Christians who were singing Amazing Grace.

And because a tiny number of idiots once did something amusing in a State widely regarded by everyone else as being choc-full of crazy people... that obviously proves that most liberals in the entire world are loony.

[lilpixieofterror]

And because a tiny number of idiots once did something amusing in a State widely regarded by everyone else as being choc-full of crazy people... that obviously proves that most liberals in the entire world are loony.

Yep, he talks about 'crazy people' while saying it should be legal to murder 3 month old infants. Don't worry, I know you're ignoring me. Too bad others are not and everybody can be exposed to the evil you preach, while attacking other for 'child abuse' while you want it to be legal to murder some of them.

[Cow Poke]

And because a tiny number of idiots once did something amusing in a State widely regarded by everyone else as being choc-full of crazy people... that obviously proves that most liberals in the entire world are loony.

Ummmm... I don't believe I said that most liberals in the entire world are loony. I'm talking about those who are slightly right of you.

I think it's safe to say that MOST of us (I may be wrong) when we rant about "liberals" in these threads have in mind the "loony left" - the fringe that seems to have taken the Democrat party (for instance) hostage.....

And you're calling these fine young lesbians "idiots"? They were simply expressing their first amendment rights, SL!

[fm93]

Right, we should not blame the 'liberal culture' for the slaughter of millions of unborn children Pman?

If you really want to play this game, someone could argue that conservative culture is ultimately to blame for the slaughter of millions of unborn children, since such a culture frowned upon providing easier access to birth control, refused to support measures such as paid maternity leave, and disapproved of policies that could've helped the poor. One could argue that conservatives are guilty because they wouldn't alleviate the conditions that drive women to seek an abortion in the first place. That conservatives could've helped create a world in which far more women who found themselves pregnant wanted the baby and/or were in a better financial and social position to keep it, but instead the conservatives blew it.

Not that I would seriously advance that argument. I recognize that it morally condemns an entire group of people when the majority are genuinely trying to do good, and grossly oversimplifies some complex issues that have few easy answers, along with some issues where the people are, in fact, doing what you accuse them of not doing. Sort of like the content of your post.

[fm93]

Titles tend to be sensationalized, I think, to get attention. And, yeah, there's a lot of broad brushes around, and they get wielded frequently.

And so in response to this, you...amen the sensationalized, broad-brushing OP, then quote it and approvingly add "Yeah!" (post #5)

That's certainly an odd response when it seemed like you were frowning upon sensationalizing and broad-brushing things.

Since when were homosexuals, sperm donors, lesbians, divorcees, schizophrenics and transgendered people automatically "liberals"?

Especially considering that the former Bruce Jenner, currently the most famous transgender person in the Western world, is a Republican. For all we know, "Matthew" could be a conservative or moderate or apolitical.

[Jedidiah]

Yes, we liberals always buy and sell our children by the pound. Hyperbole, much?

Actually, let me just add to this: here's an accusation that I, because I hold liberal views, do not love my children and regard them as my property. Quite honestly, sometimes you people make me sick.

In addition to CP's comments this was aimed not at you, but at the pathetic state of society and social morality. A generic comment on the wicked direction we are moving as a nation.

[JimL]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-parents.html

This is just wrong. 'Matthew' should not have contact.

Liberals always think they know better than anyone else and yet they are storing up untold harm for all of us as they drag society down to the level where the only thing that counts is their own selfish desires.

Where are all these liberals you are talking about that said Matthew should have contact?[/QUOTE]
I see an assertion and a rant about liberals here, but I don't see your reasoning. Why do you think that "it is just wrong" that Matthew should not have contact? And where are all these liberals you are refering to?

[Starlight]

Meanwhile, here are some of your heroes of your faith.....

So, let me get this straight. You think that Pelosi and Reid are "good examples" of a "loony" subgroup within the Democrat party. And when asked for why you label them loony, you give me pictures of a bunch of weirdos in Texas shouting "hail Satan" that has nothing to do with Pelosi or Reid.

So I'll ask again... what has Pelosi or Reid or both done that leads you to regard them specifically as good examples of a loony subgroup within the Democrat party?

[Starlight]

I see an assertion and a rant about liberals here, but I don't see your reasoning. Why do you think that "it is just wrong" that Matthew should not have contact? And where are all these liberals you are referring to?

Speaking as a liberal, I would say that parents/caregivers/guardians who have raised children with their partner have a reasonable right to have continued contact with those children after a separation from their partner unless there is sufficient reason to think that contact is substantially harmful to the child. The ex saying bad and nasty things about their ex-partner is common in family court situations, and can hardly be considered concrete proof that that person is actually bad or harmful. If there is actually some sort of objective 3rd-party evidence from psychological professionals available, that substantially changes the situation. The article is too light on objective facts and too heavy on "one person says" to reach any sort of reasonable assessment of the situation.

[JimL]

Speaking as a liberal, I would say that parents/caregivers/guardians who have raised children with their partner have a reasonable right to have continued contact with those children after a separation from their partner unless there is sufficient reason to think that contact is substantially harmful to the child. The ex saying bad and nasty things about their ex-partner is common in family court situations, and can hardly be considered concrete proof that that person is actually bad or harmful. If there is actually some sort of objective 3rd-party evidence from psychological professionals available, that substantially changes the situation. The article is too light on objective facts and too heavy on "one person says" to reach any sort of reasonable assessment of the situation.

Yes I agree, thats why I asked the O.P. what her reasoning was, or why she thought "it was just wrong." I thought that would be a little more interesting than her rant about liberals, which of course has nothing to do with the case.

[Abigail]

Yes, we liberals always buy and sell our children by the pound. Hyperbole, much?

Actually, let me just add to this: here's an accusation that I, because I hold liberal views, do not love my children and regard them as my property. Quite honestly, sometimes you people make me sick.

Just like we have to suck up that bringing children up in a Christian house is child abuse because they get to hear about things like Hell, Christians are homophobes, Christians are ignorant and stupid, Christians are mentally weak and belief in God shows metal illness. Etc etc etc. Get over yourself.

[Abigail]

Where are all these liberals you are talking about that said Matthew should have contact?
I see an assertion and a rant about liberals here, but I don't see your reasoning. Why do you think that "it is just wrong" that Matthew should not have contact? And where are all these liberals you are refering to?

'Liberals' being the ones who originally jettisoned the goal of the ideal family being the father, mother, children. 'Matthew' is just a side-street in the web that connects the child to all her different parents and her original parents are not happy with dodgy behaviour towards the child by Matthew. Getting her to think of herself as male and try out a male name. Someone is using this child as their personal social experiment and that in my view is wrong.

[Abigail]

Speaking as a liberal, I would say that parents/caregivers/guardians who have raised children with their partner have a reasonable right to have continued contact with those children after a separation from their partner unless there is sufficient reason to think that contact is substantially harmful to the child. The ex saying bad and nasty things about their ex-partner is common in family court situations, and can hardly be considered concrete proof that that person is actually bad or harmful. If there is actually some sort of objective 3rd-party evidence from psychological professionals available, that substantially changes the situation. The article is too light on objective facts and too heavy on "one person says" to reach any sort of reasonable assessment of the situation.

And this is the problem when we have a whole chain of different people and their relationships involved in creating the modern family. So many people have a say.

[Starlight]

Ah, Josh Duggar... The guy who, as a child, did some bad things that were dealt with at the time, and were supposed to be sealed as juvenile records, and only recently has been illegally outed.

There's two sides to this story, and obviously, you have gobbled up the loony left's representation of what happened.

My current view on the Josh Duggar situation (as far as the currently revealed facts go) is that his parents were put in a very difficult situation, which they didn't necessarily handle optimally, but I'm certainly sympathetic to them.

But what we liberals find so amusing about the situation is the blatant hypocrisy. This seems a common theme among many conservatives scandals - you guys just don't seem to be able to spot hypocrisy. It's just basic: People in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. It's okay to have some moral failings and struggles, but if you do, you shouldn't be out there lecturing other people on that topic that you yourself fail on. So, things like Dugger choosing to work for the Family Research Council promoting "family values" when he knows that he himself has such a flawed record on that very subject... that's what makes us face-palm. Or like the father telling people that incest should be punished by death at the same time as he's covering up the fact that one of his sons inappropriately touched some of his daughters... that's what makes us face-palm.

I have compassion and sympathy for people in difficult situations, who struggle with personal issues. But that turns into contempt and anger when they hypocritically try to speak authoritatively to others on issues where they themselves have a terrible record. It's dishonest and hypocritical. "You, then, who teach others, why do you not teach yourselves?... The name of God is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you." Paul could have well been talking about the modern hypocritical religious right. People who have serious issues in their own lives shouldn't take it upon themselves to lecture others about those issues.