This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Dem NC State Senator compares Republicans to Terrorist Bombers......

But, at least she later allowed that "It was not a good thing to do!"
Rocky Mt Democrat Angela Bryant, who was appointed to the Senate seat after the death of Senator Ed Jones, has compared Republican legislators to the Boston terrorist bombers. According to Bryant, voter ID legislation, drug testing for welfare applicants, and "crim checks" are comparable to "Pressure cooker bombs" along the route of the Boston Marathon.

Her original "tweet", which was deleted soon after posting, said:

"GOP political terrorism on poor along marathon survival route with pressure cooker bombs: pay 4 drug test, IDs, crim check,"


The Nash County GOP issued the following statement following discovery of Bryant's "tweet".

"After experiencing one of the most traumatic weeks this nation has seen in recent years, it is disappointing see one of our local representatives trivializing the real suffering experienced by those in Massachusetts, while at the same time demonizing her fellow citizens for their different political philosophy," the Nash County Republican Party said in a statement. "Sen. Bryant owes an immediate apology to the victims of the violence last week as well as to North Carolina Republicans."

How come if a Republican expresses support for traditional Christian values, it's "hate speech" but when a Dem compares the legislative activity of the opposing party to "terrorist activity", well - that's just "not a good thing to do."?


Read more here: http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/nc_lawmaker_regrets_comparing_gop_agenda_to_boston_attack_pressure_cooker_bombs#storylink=cpy

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

What an idiot. Nothing surprising here though. Extremist have taken over the Dem. Party.

Happily Married said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- "Support for traditional Christian values has never been called hate speech."

Where have you been the last ten or so years?

Happily Married said...

How come if a Republican expresses support for traditional Christian values, it's "hate speech" but when a Dem compares the legislative activity of the opposing party to "terrorist activity", well - that's just "not a good thing to do."? The answer is easy. The senator admitted it was not a good thing to do and it was clearly a mistake. Support for traditional Christian values has never been called hate speech. Forcing traditional Christian values on everyone has often been called hate speech as it is. Saying gay marriage will reduce the or denigrate the meaning of traditional marriage is a form of hate speech. Allowing county commissioners to say a Christian prayer before meetings could easily offend attendees with other religious beliefs and can be called hate speech. Trying to institute a state wide religion is hate speech - hateful of all other religious beliefs. Extremist exist on both parties and they should all be admonished.

NewGuy said...

HM & Sark...I somehow pushed the wrong button when I was reading HM's post. I was unable to get it back in it's original location so I have reposted it above. Makes Sarks comment look almost clairvoyant! Sorry for the confusion...

HM

Happily Married said...

Sark,

I have been right here. Please tell me where you think SUPPORTING traditional values and not forcing traditional values has been called hate speech! It is only attacked after it is forced on the general population.

Happily Married said...

The problem is that the typical conservative perception is that religion is being attacked - and that is simply wrong. Religion is great - and very personal. If your religion tells you not to marry someone of the same sex or not to have an abortion or not to hunt on Sunday - whatever it tells you - great. Teach your kids, tell your neighbors talk it up in your church and even on the streets. Just don't put it in legislation and force it down everyone else's throat. That is not attacking your personal religion it is celebrating it because it means no one should ever be subject to religious conviction by law - even your religious conviction.

guy faulkes said...

HM, you are hopeless. I really do not think you see the hypocrisy in the matter of how Democrats speak of the two issues.

That with which they do not agree, they label hate speech even though it is just an opinion. However, something that attacks what they disagree with in an objectionable manner is just something that was not nice.

Now let the La La La La La continue. You are singing the same song about religion on a different day.

What is being said is not the point of the thread. How it was said and the Democratic reaction to it is.

Sarkazein said...

HM- If I say I am against changing the definition of marriage and being forced by law to recognize it, you answer it with "Homophobe!". If I say I am against Obama's socialism, it is answered with "Racist!". If I say I am against killing innocent babies in the womb....

This is being accused of hate speech. It has been going on for years, where have you been? Answer- accusing all who disagree with you as being haters.






Sarkazein said...

HN- If I say I am patriotic, the left calls me a "NAZI!".
If I say we must secure the borders and stop the flow of illegal aliens, I am called a "XENOPHOBE!".

Of all the things you have been backwards on, this one is like you enjoy being wrong. Its like you like to lean into a punch.

Anonymous said...

HM,
Just curious -- where is your comment on the other thread regarding a school forcing students to pretend to be lesbians? Is this acceptable to you? Isn't this what we mean when we predict that, while families may choose to teach their children their religious beliefs at home, the government, through schools, will teach something in direct opposition to those beliefs. How can you possibly not see this????? Simple -- you do see it, but choose to ignore it. Hypocrite.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

Assuming makes an ass out of u and me, but mostly you in this case. I disagreed with the schools actions. Since my thoughts were the same as those already expressed, i saw no reason to reiterate. i also agreed that the Senator's remarks were completely uncalled for. Assuming i have an opinion without me stating it is why people like you should keep your traps shut - you only cause problems.

Sarkazein said...

A typical dishonest liberal

Anonymous said...

Just proving the point that you NEVER make a post in support of a conservative position unless goaded into it. Your silence on that thread was deafening but you jumped at the chance to make a comment about gay marriage on a completely unrelated thread. Hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

BTW, you ignored my question about government teaching in contradiction to family religious values. Maybe not to that extereme, but it will happen and you know it. Hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

And I should "keep my trap shut?" HA! You liberals sure support free speech! Hypocrite.

Sarkazein said...

HM consistently insists those not spewing the Leftist mantra refrain from voicing their opposing beliefs.

Anonymous said...

HM said, "Saying gay marriage will reduce the or denigrate the meaning of traditional marriage is a form of hate speech."

Victoria Brownworth, Gay rights advocate said, “allowing same-sex couples to marry will weaken the institution of marriage…. It most certainly will do so, and that will make marriage a far better concept than it previously has been.”

Professor Ellen Willis celebrates the fact that “conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.”

Michelangelo Signorile urges same-sex couples to “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” Same-sex couples should, he says, “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

The Advocate, a gay rights magazine, posed the following question: "Anti-equality right-wingers have long insisted that allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of “traditional marriage,” and, of course, the logical, liberal party-line response has long been “No, it won’t.” But what if—for once—the sanctimonious crazies are right? Could the gay male tradition of open relationships actually alter marriage as we know it? And would that be such a bad thing?"

So, by your statement posted at the beginning, all of these SUPPORTERS of gay marriage are guilty of hate speech, right??? Hypocrite!

Anonymous said...

I actually prefer gay rights activists like Signorile or Brownworth over HM. They are honest in their beliefs and convictions and goals. You know where they stand and why. They don't try to misrepresent themselves or their aims or portray themselves as rational moderates when anyone who can read knows otherwise.

Happily Married said...

Anon,

I support free speech of opinions. Opinions are much like religion, very personal and everyone shoudl be free to have them and express them and live by them. I indciated for you to keep your trap shut regarding assuming my stnace on an issue. I hope you see the difference. your opinions are great and should be expressed. You assuming my stance on a subject is just wrong. If you can comprehend that very basic concept, let's move on to hate speech. Hate speech is much like a hate crime - the definition lies in the motivations behind the speech. The people you mention are not guilty of hate speech as they are using a means to an end to encourage discrimination to stop. My point was that conservatives who claim that use the reasoning that gay marriage will somehow "lessen" marriage are indicating that gays are "less than". Ask yourself, how will your marriage be affected if gays are allowed to marry. If you truly believe that your marriage will not mean as much then you are guilty of a type of hate speech. The quotes you indicated are about removing the exclusivity of marriage - because marriage should not exclude anyone - else it is discrimination. Sark, anything you might have been called is most likely because you earned it.

Sarkazein said...

HM asks- " Ask yourself, how will your marriage be affected if gays are allowed to marry.(?)"

Right now, when asked on a form or socially, "Are you married?", the answer is yes or no. If yes, with the change of the definition of marriage, a follow up question would be " OH, to a man or a woman?"

Changing the definition of marriage affects us all.

"Hey little feller, do you want to marry a gal just like the gal that married your old man?" I guess the change would add more levels to this age old question. Why? Just so a special interest group can try to force by law acceptance of their lifestyle on others.

Sarkazein said...

HM wrote- "Sark, anything you might have been called is most likely because you earned it."

So you have been asleep for the last decade or so. No, you have been the standard run of the mill bleeding heart liberal guilty of trying to stifle dissenting speech by calling "homophobe, bigot, Nazi, gun nut.... etc."

Anonymous said...

HM,
What you are really saying is that different standards can be applied to different people. I was just going by your word when YOU said unequivocally that to say that allowing gay maariage would reduce or denigrate the meaning of traditional marriage is a form of hate speech. When I provide quotes from leading gay rights advocates to that effect, your response is essentially, "Well, not for them." So you get to judge motivations, now? Hypocrite! Do you have a badge that says, "Thought Police?" Hate speech/crimes laws are the worst kinds of laws because they give to the government and self-righteous elitists like you the power to punish others, not for actions, but for their thoughts. I don't want you to have the power to judge me for what I believe or think. If I personally believe that homosexuality is a sin, am I guilty of a hate crime, even if I do not harass or discriminate based on my beliefs. Better yet, if I teach my children my beliefs, am I guilty of hate speech? If my minister preaches against gay marriage in our church, is he guilty of hate speech? Hypocrite.

Happily Married said...

I find it ironic that I have been called hypocrite for telling someone to shut up regarding assuming what I might say about something - not about their own opinion - and slammed by Sark with a "typical liberal" label for calling names - and then he rambles on with "standard run of the mill bleeding heart liberal guilty of trying to stifle dissenting speech". I need help here - who is the hypocrite or the name caller?

Happily Married said...

Sark - Regarding your social issues question - once again you are going to be left behind in the dark ages. People will ask if you are married - and they might say yes or no - but there will be no follow up because - and pay attention to this - IT DOES NOT MATTER. If someone is happy and married the other parts become irrelevant. Kinda of like asking a Jew if they are married. Is the immediate question "did you marry another Jew?". Might have been that way before - when those things actually did matter. as we PROGRESS the question will be about hope and happiness and not judgement. Your ancient way of thinking will go the way of the Do Do soon enough (hey there is something appropriate about the comparison). Please note that I am restricting how you should live your life. If you want to think that way fine. It will only be a problem when you ask the question and society shuns your question because it really and truly does not matter.

guy faulkes said...

More La La La La La from hm.
she continues the same old song. How many times will she post her mistaken opinion on gay marriage in threads that have nothing to do with that issue?

Anonymous said...

Let's see...who was it that regularly used the hypocrite label before on this discussion. Umm, that would be .....YOU. Just illustrating how easy it is use the hypocrite label. Now you want to whine about it when it fits you like a glove.

Anonymous said...

HM said, "Saying gay marriage will reduce the or denigrate the meaning of traditional marriage IS A FORM OF HATE SPEECH (Emphasis mine)."

AND, HM said, "...people like you should keep your traps shut - you only cause problems."

THEN, HM said, "I support free speech of opinions. Opinions are much like religion, very personal and everyone shoudl (sic) be free to have them and EXPRESS (Emphasis mine) them and live by them."

Anyone else see a conflict here?!? HM, you must be a master at yoga. Only someone incredibly flexible could contort themselves in such a way!

guy faulkes said...

Exactly what does repeated comments on gay marriage have to do with a Democrat State Senator calling Republicans terrorists? How is commenting on that inconsistancy being a hypocrite?

HM, don't be afraid to use your blog identity. It is embarrassing for you to do so.

Sarkazein said...

HM- Odd that you find the label bleeding heart liberal the same as Nazi or homophobe or bigot.

Sarkazein said...

"People will ask if you are married - and they might say yes or no - but there will be no follow up because - and pay attention to this - IT DOES NOT MATTER."- HM

Are there more crystal ball readings?

Sarkazein said...

HM- Better yet, will you have the courts rule it illegal to ask?