Why must liberals use and manipulate children to further their agendas?

Um... Fred Phelps is a registered democrat who claims that god will punish Bill O'Reilly and Ronald Reagan as well as prominent democrats. He's run for political positions including governor, mayor, and senator as a democrat FIVE TIMES. Look, that guy is a freak of nature. I'm not even going to blame democrats for him he is so bizarre and really doesn't represent either party regardless of his affiliation. Either way, your claim of him being a republican fail.

I did not claim that he was a Republican. I stated that he was as far to the right as one could possibly get in his social leanings and that he uses his children to promote his disgusting agenda. Read.....before responding. Liberals are not just democrats. I am a social Liberal. I am not a registered Democrat. I am primarily a fiscal Conservative. I am not a registered Republican. I am a Independent. I do not believe that either major party represents me effectively. I do not believe the Republicans represent me as a woman or as a woman of color. In fact I believe the current Republican party disenfranchise me as both a woman and woman of color, certainly as a woman who does not claim any Christian body as representative of my religious beliefs. I do not believe the Democrats represent me as a person who believes strongly that our success rests upon our personal willingness to work hard and take personal responsibility for our own outcomes. I believe that the Democrats of today have for far too long rested on the idea that the government can disenfranchise huge portions of society from true participation in the American Dream simply by keeping them dependent upon the public teat. This is the real road to perdition and the most frightening part of the current propositions contained within the Democratic Bailout plan. I fully support work for money. I am strongly against money for nothing. But back to my original point. There is plenty of blame to go around. Fred Phelps is right wing in his social agenda....doesn't matter what party he is registered with. You may twist and turn it all you want. Intellect would tell you that the Westboro Church and Fred Phelps is as far from the Democratic standard as Al Sharpton is from the Republican one. Lets not mince words here.

Again it is neither a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is a Liberal or Conservative issue. I tried to explain it I guess I failed. Liberal, one who believes primarily in the personal liberties and freedoms. Generally concerned with social liberties. Generally pro Civil Rights, pro Gay Unions, pro Roe vs. Wade, pro maintaining the Wall of Separation between Church and State, generally believe wrongly in Welfare systems, generally believe wrongly in federal mandates in Education. Conservative, one who believes the government should involve themselves in the personal decisions and choices of the individual with regard to "morals". Generally against Roe vs. Wade, against maintaining the Wall of Separation in fact believes strongly and wrongly the US was founded as a "Christian Nation", against Gay Rights and in favor of Constitutional Amendment defining Marriage as between a Man and a Woman, generally in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy, generally believe in the trickle down theory of economics. I think I captured the essence. Neither are perfect. Not to belabor Fred Phelps, but he is not a Liberal. His belief systems are far far right. He is against abortion, against Gay Unions, hates homosexuals, believes strongly they US was founded as a Christian Nation, believes women belong in the home and are to "obey" their husband. It is irrelevant what party he affiliates with. What is relevant is what he espouses when he speaks. Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter could join the Democratic Party tomorrow, wouldn't change their spots; they would still be right wing conservatives.

Did you ever think that maybe the kid wanted to featured. Maybe no one was forcing her. Maybe she was expressing her own opinion. Whatever side your on, adults tend to foeget that kids are capable of thought. My friend Danielle, who is 9, clearly is and woe be upon you, however old you are if you try to tell her that she didn't choose to be an activist in her own right.

Give me a break! Are you going to tell me those crying children also chose to be activists? The woman was tormenting them to make them cry and even gave an interview on how some children were so easy to bring to tears it made her life easier. She's a disgusting excuse for a human being and I'm just as disgusted by the parents who so eagerly volunteered their children for that garbage. Those kids WERE NOT ACTIVISTS.

It's one thing to be rude to children because you don't agree with their parents. That's wrong and immature. It's another thing entirely to plaster children's faces in periodicals and all over the web to further your agenda.

I forgot about that one. It was disgusting and the mother of that child needs to be put in an institution. I did not, however, see any evidence that this woman was conservative.

I highly doubt that she was anything but, but who knows, maybe she's a democrat who is racist against Arabs and hates Muslims.

I have known democrats who were plenty racist against Arabs and Muslims. Racism is by no means limited to any specific party, race, or religion.

Can you link me to this? I have never heard of it. Did McCain backers plaster it on the internet to promote their agenda?

Bringing children along with you is a far cry from putting their faces all over the internet and on the covers of magazines. I don't blame people for bringing kids to Obama rallies, pro-life marches, or anything like that.

Well then, must find examples for you. :-)

"Well, your not biased (sarcasm, if not noticeable). Both parties do this." If both parties do this then why haven't I seen videos and magazines put out by major organizations doing this for republicans? See, what I did was furnish PROOF of liberals doing this. People like you are responding and saying both parties do this, but not one person has shown me any proof of republicans doing it. I'm not saying that no republicans have ever done anything bad, I'm saying I've never seen republicans use children this way. There's nothing wrong with parents raising their children with a certain religion, or even a political ideology so long as those children are able to chose as they get older and think more independently. Using children to spread those views however, is disgusting, especially in the ways used in my examples.

"Thankfully the freedom with which you express your hate for 'liberals'" I don't hate liberals. What I hate is when cowards use children like this. It just so happens that it's liberals who do this most of the time. "And the woman who edited the video isn't insulting and mocking Bush - he does it to himself." Yes she is mocking and insulting him. She's a coward who hides behind a camera while making a child do her dirty work. It's disgusting and pathetic. If she hates Bush, that's fine, many agree with her. She just needs to quit using her child as a pawn in her hatred and speak for herself.

You agree then, that "hate" is a strong word that ought to be used judiciously. It's one point I was hoping to subtly make in my post above. I worry that brandishing the hate label around carelessly, as I feel you did in your discussion start, lessens the impact of the word when we use it against people who really do hate, like neo-Nazi organisations or religious extremists, for example. Do you really view religious extremists, neo-Nazi's, and a woman poking fun at President Bush in the same "hate" light? Judging by your response when I labelled your rant as hateful, I'd suggest no, you don't see them in the same light any more than you see yourself in the same light. So why use it?