I am with riverman on this one (although I think the Hitler analogy was a bit much). I, too, live in the county, and would like to see a metro government, but I don't agree that people should be forced into it without a vote. Metro government makes sense, but the people being asked to be part of it should have a choice in the matter.
Conservative, I am a Christian because I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior and try to live my life according to his teachings. It is the height of arrogance to assume that you have the authority to question my faith because I do not see things your way. I will let the Lord decide if I am a good enough Christian, not you. Who are you to say what others believe or how they feel about God? Shame on you.
As for people not paying attention, I ask you these questions again:
If you are offended by name calling, why do you engage in it?
You claim that liberals hate conservative politics, but it's okay for you to "loathe" liberalism? What is the difference?
Absolutely there are some people who call themselves liberal who are quite hateful towards conservatives and conservative politics. I'll admit that I have had some less than mature and thoughtful moments when debating with conservatives. But can you honestly say with a straight face that there aren't conservatives who show the same kind of behavior? There are partisan fools on both sides, but I fail to see how using a term like "lieberal" makes you any better than those you criticize.
As for your claims to know all liberals, you are sadly mistaken. Liberals, like conservatives, are a varied bunch. Liberals have a variety of ideas when it comes to religion, abortion, evolution (for which, btw, there is a great deal of scientific evidence and does not unilaterally conflict with the idea of intelligent design), marriage equality, etc. And, as JOW pointed out, disagreeing with you does not make one a liar. Of course, your most egregious claim is that liberals hate God. That is a flat out like and you know it. A number of liberals - myself included - are proud Christians or followers of other faiths.
See, Conservative, you make my point for me. You are drawing blanket generalizations based on a very small group of people who identify as liberal. If you are offended by name calling, why do you engage in it? You claim that liberals hate conservative politics, but it's okay for you to "loathe" liberalism? What is the difference? Have some standards.
Also, I spewed no hate, and I did refute your claims. You're just too stuck on your own self-righteousness to see it.
Conservative, you use the word "lieberal" because you are childish and cannot stand to show the most basic respect to anyone who dares to disagree with you. It's hardly what I would call Christian behavior. As for your blanket generalizations, they are just further proof of your own shameful ignorance.
How is it a double standard when she is being rightfully reprimanded (and facing further consequences pending an investigation) for her inappropriate behavior? Do you have an example of a teacher preventing or promoting specific religious belief and being held to a different standard in the same district? I agree with your point that reasonable people should only want those who allow respectful disagreement and discourse in our classrooms and that this teacher seems to have failed miserably. However, she has been publicly embarrassed, has been suspended, and may (hopefully) lose her job, so I'm not sure this is a great example of the bogus "Christian conservatives are persecuted while liberals get away with everything" line.
If the above is true, then she should be removed from the classroom without a doubt. Teachers have to be very careful and keep their political opinions out of the classroom. A discussion of the election, candidates, and claims is appropriate in a social studies class, but she (given the info above) went about it the wrong way. Such discussions should be met with clear ground rules (no disrespect, back up opinions with hard facts, no blanket statements, etc.) and all students should be allowed to share their thoughts without repercussion. There are a million resources to help guide these discussions and the teacher should have made use of them.
That being said, I think it's funny how she is being held up as some shining example of hypocrisy on the left by people who trip over themselves to point out any miscreant conservative as a lone individual solely responsible for their own poor behavior. How about some principles, guys?
Timbo, if you think test scores are the only reflection of quality teaching and that schools and teachers are the only - or even the most important - factor in student success, then I believe you are in far greater need of a good teacher than you believe. Work on your research and critical thinking skills for starters.
Jon Ross, "worship session"? Whatever. Perhaps my response to you was a bit snotty, and for that I do apologize, but to say I am jaded or ignorant is completely baseless and just as rude. At least I have the ability to present an argument, you offer nothing of the sort - just name calling. Back up what you are saying, offer a legitimate counter to what I posted, or just grow up. But if you think I will ever let someone such as yourself tell me when and where I will post, you are more confused than I previously thought.
Jon, try to stay on topic, we're talking about Scottie Mayfield.
It seems you have some sort of obsession with Obama in that every post - even if it's not about the presidency - you must bring him up. It's getting a little sad, sweetie. But since you're so needy (and confused) when it comes to Obama, I'll bite.
No doubt Obama has had questionable associations in the past - show me a national-level candidate who hasn't. McCain was involved with more than a few himself. If you don't know who I'm talking about, then perhaps you should have done a little more research too. The same goes for immorality. I doubt we will ever see a presidential candidate that will qualify for sainthood. Most of them cheat on their spouses, have repeatedly lied and made promises they knew could not be kept, and been involved with shady business dealings. They all take credit for things for which they have had minimal involvement and distance themselves from the disasters for which they were completely responsible. I have seen no evidence that Obama is any better or worse than any other President or presidential candidate when it comes to scummy supporters or lapses in judgement. Of course, your definition of "immoral" may be as off as your definition of "treason."
The assumption that a majority of the citizenry knew nothing about him is arrogant and inaccurate. I am really tired of hyper-partisan fools deciding that anyone who doesn't vote their way must be ignorant. People of all political stripes vote for candidates for a variety of reasons. Some are single-issues voters, some vote strictly along party lines, some vote for superficial reasons. I voted for Obama, not because he was my favorite candidate, but because I felt he was the better of the two candidates available. When it came to the policies that mattered most to me, I agreed with Obama more than I agreed with McCain. And while Obama has disappointed me more that a few times while he has been in office, I will once again likely vote for him in November because I find myself agreeing with more of his policies than Romney's.
Anyone (conservative, liberal, or otherwise) who is thoughtless enough to not only vote for a candidate but declare them "a man of high moral stature" and a "a great representatives" based on who opposes him/her rather than the action taken and ideas expressed by said candidate honestly deserves to be represented by someone as clueless as Scottie Mayfield. So I'm sure that goofball will be our next representative.