BuckSwope

Now this we can agree on. The problem is because of how "news" is in the country and the whole SM clickbait culture, these are the only kooks people on the right get examples of most of the time. They've got you all convinced everybody on the left is some blue haired freak that is going to convince you that you are LBGTQ.

Weird, it's almost as though it's not something that most people left of center agree with.

Sure.

Be accurate mdc. They don't hate black people, they hate AAs and their culture.

Too funny, Jon. It's prejudiced to say that the worker is likely to vote D because he's black, but not prejudiced to say he doesn't vote D because of his reaction in a 30sec video on social media.

Ah, that old trick. Now stats like blacks are more likely to vote the same way as the freak behind the camera is racist. Huh, it's almost like I keep saying people like you and Eternal act every bit the same as the leftys you hate. In 2023, if in your postings you are quick to throw the racist card, the answer to situations is beating the hell out of someone, and/or you post you are being "attacked" after reading criticism, you are either a weak college lib or a Geek Club rightie.

I don't control how others vote. There are people I loathe who vote like me, and people I love who vote the opposite. Inevitable when there is basically a handful of choices. What's funny to me is statically speaking the gentlemen behind the counter are also likely to vote similar to how you believe I vote. How does it feel having emotional idiots like Eternal voting like you, who's answer to the situation is beating the hell out of someone and losing their job?

"Attack" what a poosy. Sorry, "idiot with a camera" wasn't good enough. I forgot the Trumpers around here need the proper catch phrases used to figure out people's opinions. Sorry, BR, I will rephrase: Actually, you probably are dumb enough to fall for the obvious baiting from this mentally ill Marxist radical with a camera to lose your job or go to jail over it. It won't happen again, I promise to use the proper terms and phrases.

No you wouldn't. Actually, you probably are dumb enough to fall for this obvious baiting from this idiot with a camera and would lose your job or go to jail over it. Good thing this mature adult handled it the right way.

Pretty much.

I take it to mean basically being a doosh - the extreme ends of masculine traits, often in inappropriate settings. Problem most people seem to use it for man who does anything aggressively or physically, which is bananas.

For sure. That's a far cry from the constant "civil war" nonsense posted though.

Seriously, that's pathetic if true.

Again, I disagree but that's OK. You are probably right about last part too, similar happened last time around too. Disagree with that last part. Imo most of our problems are pretty clear when you follow the money and see who benefits. When I see industries profiting off this both ways, having huge lobbies in Washington, and donating to both sides of the you are going to have to do a bit of work to convince me that this is only good business for one side of the aisle. It's all about profits over people and the 1% vs rest. All this R vs D bs stuff is the distraction for us rubes.

I agree. Still has nothing to do with the OPs point. The border a huge problem even if I agree with his point for the most part.

Pretty sure even you understand that is not a viable option and there is 0 chance of it ever happening no matter who is in charge.

How I know someone spends waaay too much time on social media. Along with the above indication that if I cared about my kids, I'd do what exactly, I'm not sure. Only R voters care about their kids now, I guess.

You are right, I won't spend time looking up 100s of examples on X of things that often don't pertain to the point at hand. Just funny when the opposite tactics are used on a topic like guns. One side mostly looks at the big picture, the overall deaths, etc.. and the other fires off examples of daily shootings. Here the opposite is true. Hmm, I wonder why that is.

What are you trying to do with your barrage of X posts, LC? Many of them are in line with what the OP was saying anyway - there are some examples caught at ports, some are not big shipments, and some don't even mention Fentanyl. It's sort of funny watching people talk past each other just because they don't want to agree with each other on anything.

It's possible. Imo way more likely what is destroying our country is waaaay too many people get their info and world view from social media. That will end us long before the immigrant hoards do.

Shocker.

We should start a book club!

Could thing you are here. Now BR can know what his opinion on this issue is!!

I will repeat that it shouldn't be so hard to find what is in books. Since IT keeps getting brought up, I tried to find an exerpt from the book online since I don't have the book, and couldn't during morning coffee. I got a lot of general outlines of the plot, but no examples straight from the text. THIS is about as close as I got: This chapter infamously ends with Love and Desire. As the seven children make their way back, they become lost in the sewers. With no idea what to do, and feeling that their strength is wearing off now that they have confronted It, Beverly suggests that they make love. What follows is very surreal; as with the risque content in the Patrick Hockstetter chapter, it is awkward for the reader and King is again tap-dancing on the line of what is appropriate. Yet he proceeds with the scene confidently, showing no shame in what he's writing. As Beverly engages in prepubescent sex with Eddie, Mike, Richie, and Stan, one senses that this act is the true threshold, the final dance of the Ritual of Chud. "It" no longer refers to the monster but to the act of sex. Now they are truly adults and will share a bond that is beyond mere romantic love. It is King's way of showing us that while childhood is a positive thing, so is the act of coming of age. It also is a purification for Beverly; her father has verbally and emotionally abused her, making her feel ashamed of sex. Now she reinvents sex and makes it a positive thing. She continues to think of birds during the act, as if to her this sensation is more amusing and lovely than it is stimulating. Finally she makes love to Ben and Bill, both of whom have stronger feelings for. Ben is described as being very "big" and being the the first one to actually make Beverly climax. We know Ben has had this crush for months. Bill also makes Beverly climax as he will years later, a sign that her love is communal. Paired with my recollection of the stuff and the ages of the kids being talked about, I did find it odd that this book and some other King was in a school library - which is why I commonly fall back to that example. To me this isn't hard. There should be some commonsense line for what is in a school library, and it should be equally applied. Sexual content is sexual content. So I raise an eyebrow when somebody thinks your examples are OK and I raise one when it's all about sexual content, but stuff like we are talking about are missing from the discussion.

Right on cue, thanks @Voltaire - there's also the fact that Gender Queer is a graphic novel as well. I don't know how a group of rational people would allow those last examples in a school library. Very few examples of non-lgbtq material reach that same level. Maybe the IT example is that bad, I don't remember. If it is, cool - toss it on the list too. Perfectly reasonable. NOW where I get skeptical from the other side is that I have read it the opposite way. An example I see on a list is about as tame as your example from Vampire Academy, but is on the challenged list and removed along side of books like Gender Queer and All Boys Are Blue. So when I see the religious right leading the charge, and a large % of the challenged books being lgbtq it makes me ask more questions.