Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

[ProfX]

I happen to believe it is appropriate to discuss gender identity or that some students might have same sex parents with a 9 year old (that's typical for third grade in the U.S.) Children at that age DO start to develop questions, they wonder, and I hate a gag order saying any teacher can't possibly answer. Also, BTW, there are other aspects to this law that affects other discussions, even in grades 4-12. It really puzzles me how censorship, "you can't talk about this," "you can't have this in the library," is freedom. Maybe on Bizarro Planet.

No one is discussing explicit sex education at those ages or that teachers would be discussing the particulars of heterosexual, homosexual, or any other type of sex. No one was doing so before these laws were passed, either. They are solutions to a problem that wasn't there. Much like "CRT" laws.

[ProfX]

The problem is she can't be trusted to use the same measure when disinformation is hurting the GOP as she will use when it is hurting the Democratic party.
The person he appointed is 100pct partisan.

You do not appear to be paying attention. Let me repeat: as head of the Disinformation Board, it isn't her job to identify what is or is not disinformation. Other agencies are already doing that. Her job is to coordinate the response.

Once again, she is a Ukraine expert - chosen because, of course, Ukraine has frequently been the target of Russian cyber-attacks. But I want to repeat: she won't just be dealing with Russian cyber-threats, NOR with election/political related disinformation. A frequent tactic of some of these cyber-attacks, for example, is to spread false rumors that create panic among the populace, or inflame distrust among the citizenry.

Secondly, I agree she has been critical of some Republicans, but much as I disagreed with the ridiculous kerfuffle over Neera Tanden, that neither makes her a partisan hack nor unqualified - and more relevant is her relevant experience on dealing with these issues.

[carmenjonze]

Would a person who agrees with you on everything except sports participation be considered anti trans.

As I've told you ten thousand times, I am not looking for agreement from you on any topic.

I'm not interested in any agreement from you on this topic, either. I could really GAD about whether or not you agree with me.

That said, you can't possibly "agree with me on everything except..." because you don't know any trans people, you don't know anything about trans people, and you only repeat what you've heard about "sports participation" from rightwing outlets.

To answer the question -- AGAIN, probably for the millionth time -- you are anti-transgender because you vote for anti-transgender politicians and support anti-transgender laws.

You do not believe in physical, bodily autonomy for ANY woman, including trans women and girls. But all of a sudden we're supposed to believe you care about fairness to women and girls in sports. Lol, okay.

Your attitudes about sports are conditioned by male-supremacism and don't even make rational sense. You've never played on a girls or women's sports team, and would have no idea, outside of crude stereotypes, which girls or women you're playing with or competing against are transgender.

You also choose ignore the history of what has happened to intersex women in sports like Caster Semenya and Stella Walsh, though it's been mentioned to you several times. Intersex people throw a big wrench in your traditionalist ideas about sex and gender, so I can see why you avoid the topic.

I've seen what you've said in support of those stupid bathroom bills of the 2010s. Your attitudes about sports are based on the same notion of trans people as predators. So yes, you are anti-trans in several different ways, none of which have anything to do with "agreement" with me. Please give it a rest.

[carmenjonze]

I happen to believe it is appropriate to discuss gender identity or that some students might have same sex parents with a 9 year old (that's typical for third grade in the U.S.) Children at that age DO start to develop questions, they wonder, and I hate a gag order saying any teacher can't possibly answer. Also, BTW, there are other aspects to this law that affects other discussions, even in grades 4-12. It really puzzles me how censorship, "you can't talk about this," "you can't have this in the library," is freedom. Maybe on Bizarro Planet.

No one is discussing explicit sex education at those ages or that teachers would be discussing the particulars of heterosexual, homosexual, or any other type of sex. No one was doing so before these laws were passed, either. They are solutions to a problem that wasn't there. Much like "CRT" laws.

I think what gets these conservatives excited is the idea of enforcing these idiotic censorship laws against people in public schools. Be they parents, teachers/staff/admin, or students.

[carmenjonze]

Remember: the point of these bathroom biills, sports laws, CRT laws, and book banning laws is to defund public schools and public libraries through lawsuits brought by propagandized conservative parents.

Conservatives ARE the public, yet they despise the public.

Conservative misanthropy starts in the mirror.

[Glennfs]

This leading question is itself an antigay canard. See below.



What a stupid question. It tells me you did not watch the video, at all.

"Heteros" not only discuss their sexuality and relationships with 5 year olds, they impose their sexuality and lifestyle on 5 year olds and younger.

If you had any LGBTQ people in your life that trust you enough to be out to you, you'd already know that a lot of you start heterosexual indoctrination as soon as a kid can walk. The point of these bills you support is to silence queer teachers, queer kids, and kids in queer-headed families.

You can watch the video and prove the OP wrong, or keep avoiding it, and prove the OP right. Choice is yours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysZYwjuFes

I watched the video twice. Just went back and looked at it again to make sure I didn't miss anything.
I didn't he spoke very well is very articulate and charismatic.
As for his comments done very well and if you notice in a non insulting way. None of the rhetoric we see from both sides.

He is going to be a force in the future. Personally I believe he needs to be VP before getting thr nomination for president.

Because he is a married gay man and let's face it people will hold that against him.

However if people get to know him as a married guy with kids and a veteran to boot.
That opposition will be much less.

Let's face it like Ronald Reagan it is hard not to like Mayor Pete based on his personality.

[carmenjonze]

I watched the video twice. Just went back and looked at it again to make sure I didn't miss anything.
I didn't he spoke very well is very articulate ...

Is he clean, do you think?

... and charismatic.
As for his comments done very well and if you notice in a non insulting way. None of the rhetoric we see from both sides.

There are far more than just two sides to any given subject.

Again, if you knew or understood ANYTHING about LGBTQ people or the broad umbrella of LGBTQ politics, you'd already know this about this topic.

You'd also already know why your TERF ideas about trans women and girls are virulently anti-transgender.

He is going to be a force in the future. Personally I believe he needs to be VP before getting thr nomination for president.

Because he is a married gay man and let's face it people will hold that against him.

However if people get to know him as a married guy with kids and a veteran to boot.
That opposition will be much less.

Let's face it like Ronald Reagan ...

Segregationist

... it is hard not to like Mayor Pete based on his personality.

this just a bigger heap of platitudes about his public persona that everybody already knows.

One of the reasons you are antigay and antitrans is because we are like stick figures to you, much like the handfull of tokenizable nonwhite conservatives.

As an example you didn't address anything he said about how the Don't Say Gay law specifically affects families like his, nor did you address the post you answered. I understand that we "minorities" are not real people to you, but just stick figures and tokens at best. This is very, very basic, but these laws and policies you vote for have tangible effects on actual people, not your dehumanizing perceptions of who we are as people and as fellow citizens.

Pete Buttigieg, along with every LGBTQ organization in the country has just told you how he is one of them.

Please re-watch the video, listen to what Pete Buttigieg says about the anti-LGBTQ laws and lawmakers you defend, and this time try to leave your cognitive dissonance about him at the door. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysZYwjuFes

[gounion]

I watched the video twice. Just went back and looked at it again to make sure I didn't miss anything.
I didn't he spoke very well is very articulate and charismatic.
As for his comments done very well and if you notice in a non insulting way. None of the rhetoric we see from both sides.

He is going to be a force in the future. Personally I believe he needs to be VP before getting thr nomination for president.

Because he is a married gay man and let's face it people will hold that against him.

However if people get to know him as a married guy with kids and a veteran to boot.
That opposition will be much less.

Let's face it like Ronald Reagan it is hard not to like Mayor Pete based on his personality.

Ah, again you don't actually deal with WHAT he said. You're just talking about HOW he says it.

Because you don't care. You WANT the right to get their way, you WANT the Supreme Court to tell him he's NOT married, and that their children can't have two dads. You are fine if no gays can adopt children in the future.

He made very good points about the plans the right has for all our futures. And you won't respond to those points.

[JoeMemphis]

Why? If I gave you a link you wouldn't click on it. You revel in your ignorance. You don't have a problem with the Russian government interfering in our election. I do.

I have a problem with any government interfering in a free and fair election. Even our own. That’s why I think it’s important not to allow political leaders to use government institutions as a political weapon.

[gounion]

I have a problem with any government interfering in a free and fair election. Even our own. That’s why I think it’s important not to allow political leaders to use government institutions as a political weapon.

Well, I do. I understand that you might rather have Putin in charge instead of a democrat.

And you were fine with Trump using the government as a political weapon.

[carmenjonze]

I have a problem with any government interfering in a free and fair election. Even our own. That’s why I think it’s important not to allow political leaders to use government institutions as a political weapon.

You guys' anti-CRT, book banning, anti-shariah, and antiabort laws are literally using government institutions as a political weapon.

So is Don't Say Gay, and Ron DeSantis's punishment of Disney for openly disagreeing with it.

You guys did this during Jim Crow, Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell, too.

[JoeMemphis]

Well, I do. I understand that you might rather have Putin in charge instead of a democrat.

And you were fine with Trump using the government as a political weapon.

You are much closer to Putin than I could ever be. And you spew these allegations of what I am fine with and pull them out of your ass like all your other "facts". You can barely articulate what you believe. You spend more time putting words another people's mouths that you do explaining what you believe; what you think. I get it. It's not like there is a lot to be proud of. And you will blame this on others instead of accepting responsibility for any of it.

I'm not into the government running our daily lives. That I leave to you.

[carmenjonze]

You are much closer to Putin than I could ever be. And you spew these allegations of what I am fine with and pull them out of your ass like all your other "facts". You can barely articulate what you believe. You spend more time putting words another people's mouths that you do explaining what you believe; what you think. I get it. It's not like there is a lot to be proud of. And you will blame this on others instead of accepting responsibility for any of it.

All this to say you still haven't watched the OP video and still have no idea what you are even talking about, outside your onw myopic navelgazing.

Watch and prove the OP wrong, or keep avoiding it and prove the OP right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ysZYwjuFes

I'm not into the government running our daily lives.

you keep voting for Marsha Blackburn, who wants to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut and put the government right back in your own stupid bedroom.

[gounion]

You are much closer to Putin than I could ever be. And you spew these allegations of what I am fine with and pull them out of your ass like all your other "facts". You can barely articulate what you believe. You spend more time putting words another people's mouths that you do explaining what you believe; what you think. I get it. It's not like there is a lot to be proud of. And you will blame this on others instead of accepting responsibility for any of it.

I'm not into the government running our daily lives. That I leave to you.

You’re into the government being in our lives period. The Senator you voted for, Marsha Blackburn, said that the Griswold decision, which knocked down the laws forbidding married couples to have birth control, was wrongly decided and should be reversed. That’s what you’re voting for.

And we do know as a fact that the Russians hacked the Clinton campaign and fed the hacked emails to the Trump campaign who used them in 2016.

And you think that’s great. Whatever it takes to win, right?

[Drak]

You are much closer to Putin than I could ever be. And you spew these allegations of what I am fine with and pull them out of your ass like all your other "facts". You can barely articulate what you believe. You spend more time putting words another people's mouths that you do explaining what you believe; what you think. I get it. It's not like there is a lot to be proud of. And you will blame this on others instead of accepting responsibility for any of it.

I'm not into the government running our daily lives. That I leave to you.

False. The people you vote for are in bed with the KGB thug. The GOP is trying to rule over everyone else, like with women's rights over their own bodies, who is allowed to vote, etc.

And it's you that can't articulate very well, so you're projecting. Every person on this board would probably agree that you have a hard time communicating what you're trying to say. A lot of the time you don't make sense. You don't even post data to back up what you say, you just make statements and expect everyone to buy it. It could be argued that you do all this on purpose as part of a trolling style, which would give your intellect more credibility. But I suspect you're just bad at communicating and too stubborn and ignorant to to see it.

[carmenjonze]

You’re into the government being in our lives period. The Senator you voted for, Marsha Blackburn, said that the Griswold decision, which knocked down the laws forbidding married couples to have birth control, was wrongly decided and should be reversed. That’s what you’re voting for.

And we do know as a fact that the Russians hacked the Clinton campaign and fed the hacked emails to the Trump campaign who used them in 2016.

And you think that’s great. Whatever it takes to win, right?

Conservatives run and win on these Jesse Helms wedge issues because they don't have any real policies except government giveaways, and they don't know how to govern at all.

Look! Over there! Kayden and Amber are reading a math book with a Black person in it!!! I'm gunna ban it!

Then parents with the mentality of Glennfs and JoeMemphis dutifully run out and vote Republican. :problem:

[JoeMemphis]

You’re into the government being in our lives period. The Senator you voted for, Marsha Blackburn, said that the Griswold decision, which knocked down the laws forbidding married couples to have birth control, was wrongly decided and should be reversed. That’s what you’re voting for.

And we do know as a fact that the Russians hacked the Clinton campaign and fed the hacked emails to the Trump campaign who used them in 2016.

And you think that’s great. Whatever it takes to win, right?

You prove my point. You sit here and pull all this shit out of your ass and try to pin it on me when you know I have never taken those positions. Then you try to bring up the Clintons and the Russians and Trump. I never voted for either of those two people and last I checked the Clinton campaign was buying dirt on Trump from the Russians. Putin must be laughing his ass off about that one. He’s playing both sides against the other and you are buying that shit hook line and sinker.

The whole Biden campaign in 2020 was that “we ain’t Trump”. Well he won and now the whole Democrat campaign is about “we ain’t Trump”. That’s pretty much all you got to run on. You can give me tons of reasons not to vote for Trump who I didn’t vote for in the last two elections. But he’s not on the ticket. He’s not in charge. Your party is in charge and you can’t run on anything else other than “we ain’t Trump”. Well with everything else going on in the world, that’s a hellava campaign strategy. It’s fucking inspirational.

[Drak]

If you're referring to the Steele Dossier, Clinton wasn't buying dirt off the Russians. Christopher Steele is MI6. When you're obtaining intel, HUMINT, RUMINT, etc., you work with foreign agents to obtain it.

Furthermore, the Steele Dossier was originally funded by the Conservative Washington Free Beacon.

[gounion]

You prove my point. You sit here and pull all this shit out of your ass and try to pin it on me when you know I have never taken those positions. Then you try to bring up the Clintons and the Russians and Trump. I never voted for either of those two people and last I checked the Clinton campaign was buying dirt on Trump from the Russians. Putin must be laughing his ass off about that one. He’s playing both sides against the other and you are buying that shit hook line and sinker.

The whole Biden campaign in 2020 was that “we ain’t Trump”. Well he won and now the whole Democrat campaign is about “we ain’t Trump”. That’s pretty much all you got to run on. You can give me tons of reasons not to vote for Trump who I didn’t vote for in the last two elections. But he’s not on the ticket. He’s not in charge. Your party is in charge and you can’t run on anything else other than “we ain’t Trump”. Well with everything else going on in the world, that’s a hellava campaign strategy. It’s fucking inspirational.

Wow you’re just making shit up. Who’s telling you this? QAnon? The Clinton campaign isn’t buying anything from Russia. You’ll say anything to defend Trump won’t you? But Putin’s your guy!

And you voted for Marsha Blackburn, at least twice.

[Drak]

People who say they don't support Trump and claim they didn't vote for Trump, but vote for the people Trump totally owns, like Marsha Blackburn, are hilariously low on the self awareness.

[carmenjonze]

You prove my point. You sit here and pull all this shit out of your ass and try to pin it on me when you know I have never taken those positions. Then you try to bring up the Clintons and the Russians and Trump. I never voted for either of those two people and last I checked the Clinton campaign was buying dirt on Trump from the Russians. Putin must be laughing his ass off about that one. He’s playing both sides against the other and you are buying that shit hook line and sinker.

The whole Biden campaign in 2020 was that “we ain’t Trump”. Well he won and now the whole Democrat campaign is about “we ain’t Trump”. That’s pretty much all you got to run on. You can give me tons of reasons not to vote for Trump who I didn’t vote for in the last two elections. But he’s not on the ticket. He’s not in charge. Your party is in charge and you can’t run on anything else other than “we ain’t Trump”. Well with everything else going on in the world, that’s a hellava campaign strategy. It’s fucking inspirational.

All you're capable of is pontificating without attribution.

Typical entitled, supremacist conservative white male.

[carmenjonze]

People who say they don't support Trump and claim they didn't vote for Trump, but vote for the people Trump totally owns, like Marsha Blackburn, are hilariously low on the self awareness.

And people who claim they voted for Biden, yet wasted no time relentlessly tearing down Biden from day one.

:problem:

[JoeMemphis]

Wow you’re just making shit up. Who’s telling you this? QAnon? The Clinton campaign isn’t buying anything from Russia. You’ll say anything to defend Trump won’t you? But Putin’s your guy!

And you voted for Marsha Blackburn, at least twice.

Who funded the Steele Dossier? Its not really in question. the money can from the Clinton Campaign, laundered thru her lawyers to circumvent reporting, thru Christopher Steele who purchased dirt from the Russians. Now I'm no Trump fan. I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for her either. I'm just guessing you voted for Clinton and yet you ignore the fact that she funded this and tried to pass it all off as factual information. She is as much a pawn of Vladimir as anyone. He played her and this country. But you appear to like and condone that kind of interference and bitch and moan the same behavior with others. What she did was no different than what Trump attempted by trying to convince the Ukraine to go after Hunter Biden. So don't pretend its about principal, because if it were you wouldn't over look the one and condemn the other. But that's how you roll.

[carmenjonze]

Who funded the Steele Dossier? Its not really in question. the money can from the Clinton Campaign, laundered thru her lawyers to circumvent reporting, thru Christopher Steele who purchased dirt from the Russians.

Link, please.

Now I'm no Trump fan. I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for her either. I'm just guessing you voted for Clinton and yet you ignore the fact that she funded this

Source?

and tried to pass it all off as factual information. She is as much a pawn of Vladimir as anyone. He played her and this country. But you appear to like and condone that kind of interference and bitch and moan the same behavior with others. What she did was no different than what Trump attempted by trying to convince the Ukraine to go after Hunter Biden.

Where are you getting this information?

So don't pretend its about principal,

principle

because if it were you wouldn't over look the one and condemn the other. But that's how you roll.

Please substantiate these claims with something other than conservative white male baldfaced assertions.

• Christopher Steele purchased dirt from the Russians

• Hillary Clinton funded it

• Hillary Clinton is as much a pawn of Putin as anyone

What are you basing these ideas on?

[gounion]

Who funded the Steele Dossier? Its not really in question. the money can from the Clinton Campaign, laundered thru her lawyers to circumvent reporting, thru Christopher Steele who purchased dirt from the Russians. Now I'm no Trump fan. I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for her either. I'm just guessing you voted for Clinton and yet you ignore the fact that she funded this and tried to pass it all off as factual information. She is as much a pawn of Vladimir as anyone. He played her and this country. But you appear to like and condone that kind of interference and bitch and moan the same behavior with others. What she did was no different than what Trump attempted by trying to convince the Ukraine to go after Hunter Biden. So don't pretend its about principal, because if it were you wouldn't over look the one and condemn the other. But that's how you roll.

You're such a fool, aren't you? You'll believe anything Trump puts out!

I deal in facts, not bullshit like this. Let's just remember that it's TRUMP who PUBLICLY asked that Putin and Russia reveal dirt on the Clintons, which they did just days afterwards.

But you're good with Russia helping Trump get elected. I'm not surprised. You guys love the idea of a autocracy, with a strongman dictator.

And yes, doing oppo research is a LOT different than a President trying to blackmail a country. But then, you're not on the Ukraine's side either, are you? You're rooting for Putin and Russia to crush the Ukraine. Why are we not surprised?