Home > Uncategorized > LaRoque replacement likely to offer quite a style contrast

LaRoque replacement likely to offer quite a style contrast

Post on September 4, 2012 by 17 Comments »

A temporary replacement for former state lawmaker Stephen LaRoque was appointed last week and according to this story in the Kinston Free Press, she seems likely to offer quite a change in style, if not political ideology.  

“Kozel is the board chair for Eastern North Carolina Home Schoolers and is the director and co-founder of the Eastern N.C. Tea Party. She is a mother of 13 children and is married to Dr. William L. Kozel of Kinston.”

No related posts.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments (Closed):17

  1. Rob Schofield
    September 4, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    The really weird part about this (and that doesn’t appear to make any sense) is that this woman is NOT the person who defeated LaRoque in the May primary. Thus, her appointment will be good for the grand total of four months during which the General Assembly is not expected to be in session.

  2. James
    September 4, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    No, the really weird part about this is the fact that this woman had 13 children.

  3. Frank Burns
    September 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    James, you really should try to stop being anti woman. They are entitled to have as many children as they want. The fact that she has an association with the Tea Party gives me some comfort that she will be a good representative.

  4. Rob Schofield
    September 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    I think that makes her a Trideca-Mom.

  5. Bill W
    September 4, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Good lord – 13 children. Can someone explain to me how you “home school” 13 children – assuming she does?

  6. gregflynn
    September 4, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    Best way to explain this is to Google “quiverfull”.

  7. Frank Burns
    September 4, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    You guys ought to be ashamed of yourselves for being so derogatory towards a lady who happens to have 13 children. It wasn’t so long ago when all of our ancestors here in the US had large families. It does strike me as hypocritical for you to disparage her while you insist on the right for a woman to have as many abortions as she wants.

  8. gregflynn
    September 4, 2012 at 11:03 pm

    Get a grip Frank. It is unusual in this day and age to have 13 children and, to homeschool them. There’s nothing derogatory in those observations. She’s a former teacher – makes sense. There is an evangelical Christian movement called “Quiverfull” that advocates large families. Again, an observation, with background information.

    Nobody is disparaging her for having 13 children, no matter how you try to spin it. You’re so primed to be a pouncing heckler you see anything here with jaundiced eyes.

  9. Frank Burns
    September 5, 2012 at 6:07 am

    Perhaps I am, and you are primed to be a smart ass with a smug attitude.

  10. James
    September 5, 2012 at 10:02 am

    She has every right to have all the children she wants and I have every right to say that her choice is not one that I believe is in the best interest of humanity in general.

    Here’s the difference between you and me, Frank. I believe she’s a fully functioning adult woman who should be free to do whatever she wants with her body. As far as I’m concerned, she can allow any fertilized egg to grow into a child … or she could have an abortion. She could use any form of contraception she chooses … or not. I would do nothing to try to make her choice illegal.

    You, on the other hand, think you know better than she does what is right for her. And you would do anything you can to outlaw her ability to have an abortion if that’s what she wanted.

    You and your ilk are the ultimate in paternalistic disrespect for woman, Frank.

  11. david esmay
    September 5, 2012 at 10:39 am

    I’m sorry, but you guy’s say the weird part is the 13 kids, as a parent of 5, my guess is she may be a masochist, I just get weirded out by the words “Homeschooler and Teapartier “in the discription. That gives me the heebiest of jeebies.

  12. david esmay
    September 5, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Frank, by the by, I bet with 13 kids they, one, don’t pay any federal income tax and two, unless they’re wealthy, we’re subsidizing their social experiment.

  13. Frank Burns
    September 5, 2012 at 10:58 am

    James,
    Allow me to correct your generalizations of my opinions. First of all, I don’t care what contraception a man or a woman chooses. I don’t think the government should pay for any of it.

    I feel the same way about abortion, the government should not pay for any of it, unless that pregnancy results from a rape. There also needs to be a term limitation agreed upon, beyond that point the life of the child must be a consideration.

    Your opinion regarding what’s best for humanity is not appropriate in a free society. It is appropriate in Red China.

  14. Frank Burns
    September 5, 2012 at 11:24 am

    David,
    It is in the government’s interest to offer incentives in having children. Look at the population decline in Europe. Nobody wants to be like Europe, except for Obama.

  15. Jack
    September 5, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    OMG!!!! All of you are weirding me out. I think the war on women is coming from both sides. Who cares, othe than you guys, how many children she and her husband have.

    All of you, men by the way, have commented on the woman but not one comment on the man. And then to make it the President’s fault and some sort of social experiment. How weird is that????

  16. david esmay
    September 5, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    Jack, I was being facetious, calm down. Frank, we’re not looking at a population decline, only a decline of the Republican demographic.

  17. Frank Burns
    September 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    David, I reckon we’ll see in November. I’m planning on celebrating.