Wisconsin Use of Anti-Bullying Laws to Intimidate Those Opposed to Gay Agenda

[nitroz]

anti-bully laws?

It's not to attack the faith, it's to get the faith to stop attacking the guys. duh.

I assume we're defining "attack" as "daring to disagree with or disapprove of", because we all know what a horrible, abusive attack leftists consider it to not be told how wonderful and correct and perfect they are by everyone they encounter.

well, while it may be that, it's taken the same way on the other side.

 

[Cecilie1200]

anti-bully laws?

It's not to attack the faith, it's to get the faith to stop attacking the guys. duh.

I assume we're defining "attack" as "daring to disagree with or disapprove of", because we all know what a horrible, abusive attack leftists consider it to not be told how wonderful and correct and perfect they are by everyone they encounter.

well, while it may be that, it's taken the same way on the other side.

Prove it. I have very little patience with "Look how reasonable I am, I just blankly attribute all behaviors to both sides so that I look fair" remarks. Let's see some evidence of your statement.

 

[rdean]

Are you kidding????
Taking elementary school children to lesbian weddings. (We went to the planetarium).
Teaching "gay" history in our schools. (We were taught History)
Skewing majority laws to favor minority rights.
Inundating social media with gay gay gay gay gay gay gay.

We have a whole generation of children that have no idea that the word gay means happy.
A six year old shouldn't know what sex is, let alone know how to harass someone with it.
Supply them with jump ropes and kick balls, not condoms.
Let our children be children.

Weddings are bad?
Don't gays have a history? What about Alan Turing? The father of modern of computer language. Or Phillip Johnson, the designer of the Crystal Cathedral.
What rights are skewed?
I never hear anything about gay unless it's right wingers complaining about them.
What about gay children?
People are giving little children "condoms"? Are you sure? Do you have a link?
What else can children be but children?

Honestly, I don't know what you are complaining about? I really don't.

1. Not a lot of field trips make kids sit through a boring wedding. Making them sit through a boring lesbian wedding is tutoring.
2. Alan Turing, George Washington, Phillip Johnson, Frank Loyd Wright, Truman Capote, Norman Rockwell, and Doc Holiday all have histories. Who sleeps with whom isn't necessary to teach history.
3. The ones that we were guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
We gave up free speech to accommodate political correctness, so no one gets their feelings hurt.
We gave up the right to protect our property so the Heinz Corp. could emanate domain and get bigger.
We gave up the right to a speedy trial, by introducing hate crime legislation.
4. Turn on your TV, you can't miss them. Being gay and being an celebrity, no problem. Being a celebrity, because you are gay. Enough already. I'll bet our kids don't even know that straight people can design clothes or decorate a room.
5. I'm all for kids, period. And I'd treat them all the same.
6. Not people. Our school officials. In elementary school. You can google those mindless decisions.
7. Children can be anything we shape them into. They are extremely pliable.
Children can be the next generation of Nazis if you train them right. Ask Hitler.
They can be the next socialists. Ask Obama

They could be the next generation of White Confederate Supremacists. Ask the Republicans.

Funny about Alan Turing. This was a young man who was correcting Einstein's equations. He was a WWII hero. Yet he died a very young man after being tortured and driven into suicide because of his being gay. Who knows how much the world lost when they lost this genius at such a young age. Seems to me something worth teaching.

 

[Dragon]

"Skewing majority laws to favor minority rights."

The protections on rights in the Constitution are for minorities. Majorities don't need the protection.

 

[Montrovant]

I assume we're defining "attack" as "daring to disagree with or disapprove of", because we all know what a horrible, abusive attack leftists consider it to not be told how wonderful and correct and perfect they are by everyone they encounter.

well, while it may be that, it's taken the same way on the other side.

Prove it. I have very little patience with "Look how reasonable I am, I just blankly attribute all behaviors to both sides so that I look fair" remarks. Let's see some evidence of your statement.

I'm sorry, did you prove your 'leftists consider attacks as daring to disagree with or disapprove of' statement?

I'm not sure how compelling anyone can find your lack of patience for attributing behaviors to both sides when you seem to find it perfectly reasonable to attribute behaviors to all of one 'side'. If I've missed something I apologize, but it seems to me you are opposed to someone reacting to your unproven generalization with an unproven generalization.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Skewing majority laws to favor minority rights."

The protections on rights in the Constitution are for minorities. Majorities don't need the protection.

What horseshit. The protections of rights in the Constitution are for EVERYONE, because there's no "majority" in the face of an intrusive and dictatorial government, and it's the government the Constitution is designed to protect our rights FROM.

 

[Gadawg73]

Are you kidding????
Taking elementary school children to lesbian weddings. (We went to the planetarium).
Teaching "gay" history in our schools. (We were taught History)
Skewing majority laws to favor minority rights.
Inundating social media with gay gay gay gay gay gay gay.

We have a whole generation of children that have no idea that the word gay means happy.
A six year old shouldn't know what sex is, let alone know how to harass someone with it.
Supply them with jump ropes and kick balls, not condoms.
Let our children be children.

Weddings are bad?
Don't gays have a history? What about Alan Turing? The father of modern of computer language. Or Phillip Johnson, the designer of the Crystal Cathedral.
What rights are skewed?
I never hear anything about gay unless it's right wingers complaining about them.
What about gay children?
People are giving little children "condoms"? Are you sure? Do you have a link?
What else can children be but children?

Honestly, I don't know what you are complaining about? I really don't.

1. Not a lot of field trips make kids sit through a boring wedding. Making them sit through a boring lesbian wedding is tutoring.
2. Alan Turing, George Washington, Phillip Johnson, Frank Loyd Wright, Truman Capote, Norman Rockwell, and Doc Holiday all have histories. Who sleeps with whom isn't necessary to teach history.
3. The ones that we were guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
We gave up free speech to accommodate political correctness, so no one gets their feelings hurt.
We gave up the right to protect our property so the Heinz Corp. could emanate domain and get bigger.
We gave up the right to a speedy trial, by introducing hate crime legislation.
4. Turn on your TV, you can't miss them. Being gay and being an celebrity, no problem. Being a celebrity, because you are gay. Enough already. I'll bet our kids don't even know that straight people can design clothes or decorate a room.
5. I'm all for kids, period. And I'd treat them all the same.
6. Not people. Our school officials. In elementary school. You can google those mindless decisions.
7. Children can be anything we shape them into. They are extremely pliable.
Children can be the next generation of Nazis if you train them right. Ask Hitler.
They can be the next socialists. Ask Obama

Hey now, don't knock Heniz mustard!
There will never enough to cover the current crop of hot dog politicians we have.

 

[Gadawg73]

Atty Says School Threatened, Punished Boy Who Opposed Gay Adoption | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

This is just getting started. It wont be much longer till Christians will have to talk about their religious beliefs in specially designated areas like smokers who have to go outside in so many places.

I give this about ten years and its all over due to the catastrophic withdrawal of Americas best and brightest who do not let the elites decide what is moral and stick instead to God's law.

What is the "gay agenda"?

Are you kidding????
Taking elementary school children to lesbian weddings. (We went to the planetarium).
Teaching "gay" history in our schools. (We were taught History)
Skewing majority laws to favor minority rights.
Inundating social media with gay gay gay gay gay gay gay.

We have a whole generation of children that have no idea that the word gay means happy.
A six year old shouldn't know what sex is, let alone know how to harass someone with it.
Supply them with jump ropes and kick balls, not condoms.
Let our children be children.

Are you claiming all of those things that you posted were going on every day, every, week, every month or even just once a year?
Or are they isolated incidents that do not happen ever in 99% of all public schools in America?
No Federal mandates gay this and that.
You are blowing it out of proportion, no pun intended.
I sent 3 kids over 20 years to public schools.
What you are claiming is beyond reality of every day school almost EVERYWHERE.
I doubt it even happens where you live and if it does it is seldom.
Yawn, the gay boogeyman strikes again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

well, while it may be that, it's taken the same way on the other side.

Prove it. I have very little patience with "Look how reasonable I am, I just blankly attribute all behaviors to both sides so that I look fair" remarks. Let's see some evidence of your statement.

I'm sorry, did you prove your 'leftists consider attacks as daring to disagree with or disapprove of' statement?

I'm not sure how compelling anyone can find your lack of patience for attributing behaviors to both sides when you seem to find it perfectly reasonable to attribute behaviors to all of one 'side'. If I've missed something I apologize, but it seems to me you are opposed to someone reacting to your unproven generalization with an unproven generalization.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the din of leftists demanding that the Boy Scouts lose all funding and support, churches be charged with "hate crimes", Catholic adoption agencies be closed, etc. You were saying something about leftists not considering disagreement to be an attack?

 

[Montrovant]

Prove it. I have very little patience with "Look how reasonable I am, I just blankly attribute all behaviors to both sides so that I look fair" remarks. Let's see some evidence of your statement.

I'm sorry, did you prove your 'leftists consider attacks as daring to disagree with or disapprove of' statement?

I'm not sure how compelling anyone can find your lack of patience for attributing behaviors to both sides when you seem to find it perfectly reasonable to attribute behaviors to all of one 'side'. If I've missed something I apologize, but it seems to me you are opposed to someone reacting to your unproven generalization with an unproven generalization.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the din of leftists demanding that the Boy Scouts lose all funding and support, churches be charged with "hate crimes", Catholic adoption agencies be closed, etc. You were saying something about leftists not considering disagreement to be an attack?

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the din of rightists calling anyone who believes in legal abortion sick and twisted murderers, demanding gays not be allowed to marry because of how it will destroy traditional marriage, that Obama be charged with treason, etc. You were saying something about both sides not considering disagreement to be an attack?

See what I did there?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm sorry, did you prove your 'leftists consider attacks as daring to disagree with or disapprove of' statement?

I'm not sure how compelling anyone can find your lack of patience for attributing behaviors to both sides when you seem to find it perfectly reasonable to attribute behaviors to all of one 'side'. If I've missed something I apologize, but it seems to me you are opposed to someone reacting to your unproven generalization with an unproven generalization.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the din of leftists demanding that the Boy Scouts lose all funding and support, churches be charged with "hate crimes", Catholic adoption agencies be closed, etc. You were saying something about leftists not considering disagreement to be an attack?

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the din of rightists calling anyone who believes in legal abortion sick and twisted murderers, demanding gays not be allowed to marry because of how it will destroy traditional marriage, that Obama be charged with treason, etc. You were saying something about both sides not considering disagreement to be an attack?

See what I did there?

Yeah. You made my point, shitforbrains. I list ACTUAL attacks, and you list "Boo hoo, they said mean things." The Boy Scouts ACTUALLY have lost funding, and ACTUALLY have had to go to court to defend their right to use public land they've been using for almost a century. Catholic adoption agencies have ACTUALLY gone out of business. There isn't a single one left in Massachusetts. Churches have ACTUALLY been sued for a variety of nonsense, and have ACTUALLY had to pay lawyers to go to court and defend their First Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, you're sniveling because "rightists called me names", and "people are daring to vote on public policy in a way I don't agree with", and "saying bad things about the President".

So yeah, dipshit, I'm talking about ONE side considering disagreement an attack, and the OTHER side ACTUALLY being attacked. And you've proven me right. Bravo.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the din of leftists demanding that the Boy Scouts lose all funding and support, churches be charged with "hate crimes", Catholic adoption agencies be closed, etc. You were saying something about leftists not considering disagreement to be an attack?

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the din of rightists calling anyone who believes in legal abortion sick and twisted murderers, demanding gays not be allowed to marry because of how it will destroy traditional marriage, that Obama be charged with treason, etc. You were saying something about both sides not considering disagreement to be an attack?

See what I did there?

Yeah. You made my point, shitforbrains. I list ACTUAL attacks, and you list "Boo hoo, they said mean things." The Boy Scouts ACTUALLY have lost funding, and ACTUALLY have had to go to court to defend their right to use public land they've been using for almost a century. Catholic adoption agencies have ACTUALLY gone out of business. There isn't a single one left in Massachusetts. Churches have ACTUALLY been sued for a variety of nonsense, and have ACTUALLY had to pay lawyers to go to court and defend their First Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, you're sniveling because "rightists called me names", and "people are daring to vote on public policy in a way I don't agree with", and "saying bad things about the President".

So yeah, dipshit, I'm talking about ONE side considering disagreement an attack, and the OTHER side ACTUALLY being attacked. And you've proven me right. Bravo.

How about gays ACTUALLY, until very recently, having to hide their orientation to join the military? How about schools ACTUALLY having to teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes?

Besides, my point wasn't whether there have been cases where people or organizations might consider themselves under attack. My point was that you are completely comfortable claiming the left all think a certain way, which is obviously a generalization you cannot prove (certainly not with the examples you provided here) while someone else responding that the right feels that way, as well, is unacceptable and requires proof.

Once again, your unproven generalization = good, someone else's unproven generalization = bad.

Oh, and if you are an example of the right, then I think you are doing a fine job of proving nitroz correct. You seem to take me disagreeing with you as an attack!

 

[nitroz]

I assume we're defining "attack" as "daring to disagree with or disapprove of", because we all know what a horrible, abusive attack leftists consider it to not be told how wonderful and correct and perfect they are by everyone they encounter.

well, while it may be that, it's taken the same way on the other side.

Prove it. I have very little patience with "Look how reasonable I am, I just blankly attribute all behaviors to both sides so that I look fair" remarks. Let's see some evidence of your statement.

disagree of marriage equality.

which usually turns into political opposition

which can be taken as an attack