Sometimes there is a complete lack of balance in the world.
An 11 year old Arvada Colorado boy who was being treated for Attention Deficit Disorder was told by a teacher to draw pictures when he was upset instead of disrupting the class, so the boy did just that.
He was arrested and led away in handcuffs later in the evening for his drawing. He had drawn a stick figure picture of himself shooting a gun at four others and had written on it
“teacers must die” and “music sucks”
His therapist said that drawing was a means for the boy to vent his frustration. The boy’s teacher saw the drawing as the boy was throwing it out and sent the boy, “Tim” to the principal’s office. The school determined that he wasn’t a threat but the Arvada police wanted the boy arrested. They took him away in handcuffs, put him in a cell, fingerprinted him and kept him from his parents.
Unlike Jared Loughner, this boy has no prior unsettling history.
A juvenile assessment report shows he’s never been in legal trouble before and is at low risk to reoffend.
In 2007 a 13 year old Arizona boy was suspended for drawing a gun.
In 2010 an 8 year old Portland boy was suspended for possessing a 4 inch toy gun made for action figures.
One has to ask why children are held to higher moral and legal standards than are liberals.
Twitter death threats to Scott Walker
Twitter death threats to Sarah Palin
Twitter Sarah Palin Death Threats from Kim Hedum on Vimeo.
Not to mention putting Governor Scott Walker in cross hairs.
They don’t even get a detention.
And who could forget this heartwarming image?
For pure fun don’t miss this.
How screwed up is a society which is so punitive to children yet so tolerant of death threats by adults? The answer clearly is that threatening those on the right is an acceptable norm.
The better question is “why”?
“One has to ask why children are held to higher moral and legal standards than are liberals.”
Some questions just answer themselves, don’t they?
In his seminars and books, Warren Bennis laments the lack of leadership. He insists that in this postmodern world, leaders are being replaced by managers in many organizations. We see this in the military, too. (Managers create those megabyte power point presentations.) The main difference between managers is that managers do things right while leaders do the right thing. It is quite obvious that our country lacks leaders in our educational system.
During the Columbine tragedy, I watched things unfold on the local television. The law enforcement at the school waited outside even though there had been shots fired inside. They managed the situation. A leader would have sent in a swat team to disrupt the situation and take control.
Managers got WI into the mess they currently have with the unions. A manager got us into the mess we have with our economy and foreign affairs. Political correctness is a tool used by managers, not leaders. Managers control the environment within their area of responsibility. Leaders make decisions based upon potential impacts of external influences on the organization. Leaders think long term. Managers stay in their own little world.
Arresting an 11 year old child for drawing pictures of a gun and failing to address threats to elected officials by adults shows a severe lack of leadership.
DrJ, I think the question isn’t phrased correctly.
Why do Liberals become highly aggressive, when children don’t respond correctly to Liberal brainwashing and indoctrination efforts, might be more specific. Yet the question reflects their frustration when a failure or breakdown in the system and a child does not follow ‘group think’; such incidents could precipitate deviation from the party line at a later date, when the child is old enough to vote or join a union.
Liberals do not have moral or legal standards, their only quest is power, power over everybodies lives. If that means that children have to live to a standard, their standard or be arrested. So be it.
@Skookum: That’s a good point.
It is also ironic that the so-called ”tolerant Left” maintain a ”zero tolerance” policy toward those they supervise.
Almost every week the Jihad Watch web site publishes one or more of the serious death threats sent to them via e-mail.
Nothing is ever done to the perps.
Everyone is equal. Some people are simply more equal than others. Especially if they happen to be Liberals!
@L. E. Liesner, #4:
Yet conservatives seem to believe that it’s the proper place of the State to deprive women of control over their own reproductive function. I can hardly imagine anything more controlling or more intrusive than to dictate that a pregnancy must continue, regardless of a woman’s personal circumstances or personal wishes. If that’s not a classic example of taking power over other people’s lives, I don’t know what is. It’s illustrative of a fundamental difference in outlook that exists between liberals and conservatives, and one that separates them on a host of different issues.
Protecting the individual’s right to choose is a morally informed position. It’s one held by most liberals owing to their recognition of a higher moral principle involving freedom of the individual, which is independent of their personal feelings about abortion itself.
It’s all about protecting the individual’s freedom to make deeply personal moral decisions as their own conscience dictates.
Some people tend to equate a desire to protect and exercise personal freedom with a lack of morality, anytime choices are made that they don’t happen to agree with. That people will make choices you don’t approve of is one of the prices that must be paid for liberty.
Greg, while you’re leaping into the off topic left field, you need correction for wandering off the path of both subject and truth. Women already have control over their reproductive function in the majority of instances. It’s call birth control, abstinence, or caution. Abortion is not the only “control”.
Instead of pondering dictates that a pregnancy continue, how about a bit of responsibility for getting pregnant to begin with? The easier it is to correct irresponsibility, the less responsibility will be exercised in decision making.
And before you leap on the incest/rape bit, only about 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest, and 6% for medical reasons. Additionally, 75-85% of women pregnant by rape or incest do not have abortions. As David C. Reardon, Ph.D. notes, the welfare of the mother and child are never at odds with each other.
Fact is, most of those leading the pro death charges run on agenda, and not personal experience. Pathetic they hold these women with rape/incest up as their banner of sympathy, and do not allow their own words into the debate. But that’s politics for ya.
So who is getting all these abortions? And why?
Funny… I’m missing that medical, or rape, or incest reason there….
There were an estimated 1.21 million abortions performed annually in the US in 2005…. the most recent statistic I could find in short time searching. The average cost of an abortion depends upon the age of the fetus… and can range from $90 to $1800.
Ready for some public burden math because of irresponsibility? 14% of abortions are publicly funded, with the lion’s share of that cost borne by the state budgets. That’s 169,400 annually, using 2005 stats.
According to the 2011 stats in the link above, about 88% of the annual abortions were in the 1st trimester. Let’s average $400 for those 149,072 abortions. That accounts for $59.63 million.
The 12% balance are later term, which can be as high as the $1800. So let’s be generous and average $1000 for later term abortions for the remaining 20,328… or another $20.33 million.
Total estimated taxpayer funding for abortions, with the vast majority due to personal irresponsibility… or just plain “I don’t wanna have kids because….” is $79.93 million annually.
While we’re trying to save money, every little bit helps. And I say that $79.93 million should be flatly denied. Period.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic, and my apologies for perpetuating the hijack temporarily.
Dr.John In what small world do you live that has you believing people on the right are threatened any more than people on the left?
Seems many on the right have a massive inferiority complex always complaining about how ‘liberals feel they’re superior” Go buy a bigger gun.
Rich, pointing out the elitism of the left is hardly proof of an inferiority complex. I’m not surprised you would try that arguement rather than face facts.
GREG just look at the videos, AND STAND VERY SMALL while looking at blattant corruption, from those teachers, and those DOCTORS, shame on them, they are suppose to be higher than that,
well they descended very low, accepting lies to be right to serve their UNION, shame
I figure a defamatory, off-topic generalization such as the one made in Post #4 frees me up to step off the path, pick the comment up with a pooper scooper, and deposit the bag in the nearest designated receptacle.
The campaign to eliminate womens’ freedom of choice strikes me as a dead-on-target example of how some conservatives are aggressively pursuing the sort of “power over everyone’s lives” that L. E. Liesner asserts liberals want. It has the great advantage of being much more than a merely hypothetical example.
The problem with republican cost cutting initiatives so far is that republicans are attempting to advance them while wrapping them around some of the most divisive elements of their own far-right, partisan agenda. Their opponents are concerned more with what’s inside the box than with the appealing wrapping paper.
Near as I can tell, almost everything republicans are presently doing or trying to do is like that. There’s the wrapping paper that appeals to current voter concerns, and then there’s some element of the real republican agenda hidden inside.
Interesting how you never consider the more helpless life involved… the child… in your dialogue, Greg. Why is it, in the pro death argument, that the Dems always idolize the irresponsible mother, and nonchalantly condemn the innocent to death, then claim the moral high road? Always baffling.
But then, that’s why I use the real yin to yang catch phrase – pro life vs pro death – instead of the cleverly disguised and heartless “pro life” BS as a description.
I will agree that comment #4 doesn’t add much to the OP topic, and is a sweeping generalization. But are you new here? You know that happens from time to time. Best to ignore such things that to unwittingly expand – in depth -into areas that prove you to be inadequate in your argument.
And that you decided to step off the yellow brick road into the abortion/women’s rights arena only adds positive emphasis to that comment #4, when he/she said:
Perhaps it should have been corrected to meet your ensuing retort to say:
“If that means that children have to die, so be it”
Needless to say, I don’t see every pregnancy that doesn’t continue to the birth of a child as the death of a child. Nor will I presume to pass a general judgement on women for the choices that they make, or deprive them of their right to do so. In my view they have a fundamental right to the control their own bodies, whether or not I or someone else happens to like it or not.
I believe that pretty much sums the liberal position up. I’ll leave the thread to further discussion of the topic–whatever the central issue of that might actually be. The school suspensions cited are so patently absurd that it would be ridiculous to take issue with their absurdity. I think most liberals would agree.
@Greg: Talk about taking control, you’re trying to hijack this thread with an off topic rant. Nice try, thanks for playing.
BTW, since you brought it up Greg:
I know you won’t answer me, but I am going to try anyway. Could you please tell me who is standing up for the rights of the unborn baby? Did it ask to be created? Did it initiate the life process? No. The mother and the father did, so who is going to stand up for the rights of that baby? You talk of exerting control over womens’ bodies, but aren’t you espousing for control over the body of that unborn baby?
Really, tell me how your stance on this issue isn’t taking control over the life and body of that unborn baby??
@MataHarley: You did an excellent job of shutting down Greg’s hyperbole, as usual. Kudos to you, ma’am!
Always a pleasure to hear kudos from you, anticsrocks. My thanks for the kind words.
Greg answers the question of ‘when does life begin?’ not as the moment of conception, but rather the moment of birth. However, even his “genius” cannot reconcile that babies are born at different points of the mother’s pregnancy, and that because of that, one cannot definitively state that life begins at birth. His real motive must then be that he considers killing innocent, unborn children a “right” of the mother. It is tragic that people think this way.
I didn’t say or suggest that life doesn’t begin until birth. On the other hand, I certainly don’t support extending the full range of human attributes and legal rights to a zygote, which appears to be at the other end of the spectrum.
Really? Now how does that work in the scheme of reality?
A child conceived would be a child born (save by death by natural causes).
A child aborted is the death of a child.
Your bizarre assessment defies any logic.
Refer to comment #19.
Birth control pills regularly prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs; therefore ,every woman who has used birth control pills has regularly murdered unborn children.
Sorry, I will not go where the premise at the root of that logic takes us. I don’t accept the premise, any more than I’d accept the notion that human life does not begin until the moment of a full-term birth. Arguments based on either one are incorrect, and very often disingenuous.
duh, Greg…. refer to my comment above.
Birth control prevents conception, and thereby is not “a child conceived” to be condemned to death.
Fish in a barrel….
I guess this is how you lib/prog wackies get your “taxes not increased/imposed represents a tax loss” type of argument, eh?
Let me just say this is one of my favorite websites right now, I’m not a computer guy by nature but I have a few conservative sites I now frequent. My favorite parts are the threads. I always try to be an open non-ignorant person, which is rarely easy for me. However I just can’t help but laugh openly at seeing guys so convinced of ridiculous ideas get there butts handed to them in debates. Some of these guys have never won an argument since I’ve been here. They like abuse I guess.
So tell me Greg, how is your position on this topic not exerting control over a lifeform?
I don’t usually quote scripture but this seems appropriate:
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
“ The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left .”
There seems to be quite a number of doctors who believe otherwise, although oral contraceptives are designed to work as their name implies.
Greg, my patience this eve is wearing thin on your outright stupidity. Do you even read what you link to?
Pray tell.. .do explain to us dummies out here how birth control can lead to an “early abortion” of a child who was never conceived.
@MataHarley: Notice Mata how Greggie keeps avoiding providing us an answer to my question:
@MataHarley: Greg, as per usual, is busy debating Himself. His ramblings make sense only to Himself.
I suppose I’ll leave that for anyone who is interested to figure out for themselves. Yes, I read the material linked in #26 and understood what I was reading. The issue isn’t relevent to my pro-choice position, one way or the other. Some here might find it important. Whatever.
I’m calling it a night.
@Greg, no you did not read anything thoroughly, or you would have walked away with more questions than answers. Or you would have realized that Randy Alcorn is an evangelical with no medical experience, who happens to live in my national back yard.
So, Greg… for you wannabe manly kind of man who is clueless to how birth control works for a woman, let me ‘splain some basics it does for you to prevent pregnancy.
Even the most reading challenged will stumble across the stats that the likelihood of “escape ovulation”, as this non-medical evangelist calls it, happens in only 2%-10% of the cycles of women who take the pill. Let’s see… 12 cycles annually… think you can handle that simple math of long shots without help, Greg?
Secondly, oral contraceptives have two lines of defense. First, it inhibits ovulation (thus the small percentage of “escape ovulation” as this non medical evanglist calls it). Ovulation is, of course, creation of the eggs sperm need to fertilize. The window for fertilization is narrow monthly… down to hours or a couple of days max.
Secondly, it thins the blood lining of the uterine walls to prevent implantion for growth.
Without both the fertilization and implantation, there is no successful conception of a child.
To paraphrase your hero, let me be clear…. if a fertilized egg doesn’t adhere to the uterine wall, there is no child conceived. Or put more simply, until that egg implants itself into the endometrial lining, it is not officially an embryo by any medical definition. You might as well say that because you purchased a basket case of Harley parts, you own a Harley.
Now, because you’ve never put this stuff in your body, I don’t expect you to be all knowing. But birth control has been around for decades, and when I was going to be putting that stuff in me over five decades ago, I made sure I knew how it worked.
Your problem is you pick a non medical source, figure it will fly because it’s an evangelical author on a conservative forum, and your lazy butt doesn’t go any further.
I repeat… you step way outside of your expertise, or even basic Google research abilities, far too often. You deserve any abuse you receive, Greg.
Ah, well. At least we have established that there’s no real basis for pharmacists or doctors to refuse to dispense contraceptives or morning after pills on moral grounds. Perhaps that’s worth the abuse. *S*
I never said there was a basis for pharma not to dispense contraceptives. Where the hell did that come from? In fact, I don’t know of any substantial number of physicians who refuse to dispense birth control on “moral” grounds. You on crack, dude?
Now the morning after pill? That can be a different story, depending on physical timing. ala has that egg attached itself to the uterine wall in that time frame or not? Because, the way the morning after pill works, it will not abort an egg that has already been fertilized and implanted. In which case, it’s an exercise in futility. My problem with the morning after pill is it hasn’t been around enough for side effects and any possible damage. Also, that again, it encourages irresponsibility with an advertised easy way out (that isn’t true…)
Do you know what a pap smear is, Greg? Probably not… It’s not much different than an abortion, save they are scraping the walls of the cervix instead of the uterine wall. An abortion is basically a D&C (Dilatation & Curettage)… beyond the cervix area. An abortion in the early trimester scrapes the embryo off the walls of the uterus.
And nothing you have presented has squat to do with a defense, or offense, of the moral grounds. You have simply proven you know nothing about what constitutes conception of a child… medically or morally.
@MataHarley: And in all his tap dancing with you he STILL won’t give us an answer to the question I posited to him. He said that banning abortions would be giving the government too much control over a woman’s body. But if that is so, then his position is exerting control over the unborn baby.
Actually, anticsrocks, I think Greg answered your question when he acknowledged that he’s sketchy on just when he considers a fetus/embryo a “life” worthy of saving. Hilarious since he didn’t even know when it became an embryo to begin with. I’d say that, in itself, speaks volumes.
But with that mindset, if he doesn’t consider it a “lifeform” for whatever reasons of moral convenience, it’s serves as his justification and defense.
I’d say you should corner him with partial birth questions, and see if he considers it a “life” worth saving then. But I wouldn’t hold my breath. The drive-by-johnny-ryan mentality, right along with the Alinsky divert tactic, is alive and well when you corner these lib/prog critters. LOL
@MataHarley: I know, but it is just so much fun to press him on it, knowing that he has no viable answer. lol
And then mention that Barry Soetoro four times voted against saving their lives. His damned committee removed the language from the bill that would have made it Roe-neutral and then voted against it because it wasn’t Roe-neutral.
And the freaking idiot liberals swallowed whole with their eyes closed.
@Randy: Little late to this comment, sorry about that. Been busy with real life and just catching up with the comments.
Actually, wanting SWAT to go in was the reason for the delay. Up until Columbine law enforcements strategy, countrywide, was to contain and wait for SWAT. Of course if there was a bank robbery and the suspects come out shooting as they did in the Hollywood shooting some years back then we would engage but if we could not see it, and they weren’t engaging us, we were told to contain and wait. That changed after Columbine. Now we train for active shooters and the first 2-4 officers to respond are to enter and engage. Much better policy. Yes, SWAT are the experts but they take FOREVER since they want details of everything inside a location, a search warrant, and on and on and on. They take care of business thats for sure but waiting for them is just not feasible.
Kind words Zac and much appreciated. FA sure has become a community, much more then I could ever had imagined when I started.
@Curt: Curt, I do understand a law enforcement perspective, but I recognized this as a combat situation right away. Combat guys would have reacted differently. I guess my thoughts now are also subject to information that I learned afterwards. The sheriff already had knowledge about these kids and weapons. My son was 10 years old at the time and he didn’t want to go to school!
Strategy works only for most situations. the people on 3 of the 4 flights on 9/11 thought that all they had to do is to sit tight until the hi jackers landed somewhere. The passengers on the fourth plane realized from phone calls and text messages that they were to crash and changed strategy.
I appreciate this site and have some ideas for posts, but I have trouble putting the photo on the site.
@ Randy, As We know when it goes from Strategy to Tactical, the book solution has severe drawbacks.
Especially at a School when Children are involved. The 5 Man Stack if properly executed by trained “Operators” still results in casualties. Three of them would have been adequate for most scenarios but
not in CONUS or at a School.
The Law of “Unintended Consequences” just ain’t gonna wash in the Civilian world. To err in Caution seems to be the best outcome for the LEOs and Elected Officials. Waiting seemed to be prudent to those that would have tough questions to answer after the fact. I will never second guess anyone else’s style or mode of operations as I was not there or calling the action. Being subject to the Possible Legal Action regarding the conduct of LEOs in Civil Court afterwards , they did what they reckoned was proper.
Still a sad day for the Nation regardless.
@ Curt, the Edit function has a “hitch in the git-along” here.
Not sure what you’re getting at here. We train for combat all the time, that’s what we do. When a gangster engages us because he doesn’t want to go to jail we go to combat with him. When kids start shooting up a school then we go to combat with them but we are also hamstrung by the rules of engagement just like the military can be. My point was that prior to Columbine the rules of engagement sucked. Contain and wait for SWAT. That’s changed.
You hit the nail on the head. The thinking of management and the higher ups was to wait for the experts but in a fluid active shooter situation you just can’t do that. Now we will move in with a 3 man stack, or more if the personnel shows up quick enough. Either way, the pre-Columbine mind process is gone, which is good.
@Old Trooper2: Yeah, the new wordpress update is playing well with the edit comment plugin. Working on getting it fixed.
@ Curt, Thanks Pardner.
Holy Trollzilla, I’m damn glad I didn’t get arrested as a kid for drawing a Shield and Sword emblem or a schematic of the Pulse Rifle from the Dark Horse Comics Alien Vs Predator series (movies were kinda meh.)