BuckSwope

Oh man, that's even more disappointing if true.

LC isn't the same person as the OP?

They also have no self awareness or self control as they obsess about tim and squis. Can you imagine being so obsessed with another poster you have to go look up their posts on other boards and even count how many they had in a day.

Not sure if the first part is true, but you are getting at a reason its obvious so much of this is political bs and Washington really doesn't want the issue fixed. Even if Trump didn't tell them to, it seems they are more than willing to not talk about it and kick it down the road yet again, not doing anything for the issue. At the same time this bs is going on it looks like Biden is trying to work with Mexico to get them to slow the flow, again not addressing the issue. It really it stupid. On top of that we could have TX dropping wire as the feds come behind and cut it, again doing nothing. 'Murica!!

Weird a few of us on this light traffic board went to UW-Madison.

Maybe I need to be more clear. We both seem to expect it, but when I read your post I get the impression you are OK with it. I am not.

That's not the same thing as only respecting laws and rulings when you agree with them as I was pointing out. I think it's odd that people on the "law and order" right would cheer on ignoring SC rulings.

There's always an excuse to justify doing what you want. I guess we are at a point now where we only respect SC's decisions when they overturn RvW and other things people agree with.

To me the issue isn't that he says this dumb sh1t. That should be fully expected. The issue is that we are now at a point where a large portion of the country doesn't believe Biden won legitimately.

Born in Louisiana, lived the next 5 years in Japan, and been in WI in the same area since around 2nd grade.

Who cares what the author said? My question didn't have anything to do with either point in this post. I simply asked either of YOU bozos, knowing what is in it, why YOU think it should be in a HS library. It's probably the most cited book in the debate, so it would be odd to not know what is in it on your end. But it's either that, or you know what's in it and evidently find it not that bad or it has some value to override the graphic content.

Sweet Jeebus, not even the book I was talking about. I even named Gender Queer by title, and Horseman provided links to pics that are in that book above. Sure, I've also advocated that there needs to be a sit down with rational adults to knock out this book debate. That's not going to happen, so both sides look a bit crazy. . 100% if we are saying sexually explicit shouldn't be allowed, then apply that across the board. I understand what you are driving about with the usual accusations that the right are only caring now because it's lgbtq depictions of sex. I often wonder that, especially when I see religious groups behind the push for these book removals. IMO that changes nothing and my opinion still stands and that's what debate and discussion are for. The left loses the conversation instantly by not agreeing that something like Gender Queer shouldn't be in a school library.

One that I make has sweet potatoes in it.

OMG, sorry - Why should this "memoir" (which graphic pictures and on wiki's sight is a "graphic memoir") be allowed in a library of a school. Again, squis-level post. I didn't ask you to watch the video, but IMO you should at least know what is in the book being talked about this much. Yes, the OP and others go overboard by calling everything porn. Take that up with him, I thought I was asking an easy enough question. You say reasonable people can disagree, and I am asking you WHY you disagree. I think it's about an easy of a case as I've seen, and you disagree - I get it. Then why should it be allowed?

Squis level post, awesome job. How about you or he try to convince me? I am not against lbqtq+ materials in general in a school library, but at least IMO there has to be some cut-off for explicit materials for all materials. Also, IMO there is the added element that these are graphic novels, not just written word. That should matter in the discussion. Hell, I will even give you HS level library we are talking about. Why SHOULD something like Gender Queer be allowed in the library of a school?

This post is why the left is losing this battle. You watch a whole Joy Reid interview, how about take the time to look through and read Gender Queer. That book is as slam dunk of a case for a book that shouldn't be in any school library. IMO the very first step for libs is to look at the easiest cases like that and be OK with them getting the boot. Instead, you see dumb sh1t like arguing about IF they are in a library or the kids didn't actually see the book, it was just available on a shelf - that type of nonsense. Anything just to not agree with the right on something. Why is it so hard just to say that book is focked up and it shouldn't be in any school libraries?

No, not just reading about it you knob. This is new territory because so much of this comes from and is in graphic novels. Yes, I think the right goes overboard with it sometimes, but I can't imagine anybody with 1/2 a brain knowing what is in Gender Queer and not thinking that has 0 business being in school libraries. There has to be a mild compromise for rational adults. Maybe the right throws the left a bone and not remove all lgbtq+ materials from a library and the left throws the right a bone and admit crap like Gender Queer and other graphic depictions of sex don't belong in the school library? Maher nailed another New Rules for the season opener - this country needs to vote out the crazy and get back to the rest of the 80% try to improve our country.

Is this your first time talking to squis? Come on, now the argument will be that he specifically said "seeing" and that the books being in the library isn't the same as kids seeing them. He's probably not going to answer WTF Gender Queer was in those libraries in the first place.

It's funny to watch these guys cheer on this display of kneeling and bootlicking. I really hope Trump tiwsts the dagger and still calls him Meatball Ron after he gets the cush cabinet position.

I guess I shouldn't have laughed and instead asked - Ok, what are they now in Cali. I was thinking WI prices, but they could already be $22 there.

LOL. Didn't you say you were good at math?

I don't doubt that's the case. Again, I guess it's the chicken and egg and where on that spectrum you fall. I would expect it to be more common in the black communities - they are more likely to be poor and uneducated. I guess where we differ is I would say the hopelessness is a logical result of an undereducated community in poverty, not the other way around as you typed it.

Well, some of it is that we incentivize the poor to have kids out of wedlock. Poverty rates are 2x for the black community. No doubt that effect them more, but that doesn't have anything to do with "black culture", unless you are going to try to convince me that welfare queens don't exist in our mostly white state. Now add in all the other factors that tip the scales toward more single mothers, especially in the inner city like we are talking about - 5x the incarceration rate, high murder rate in young men, etc.. I thought it was interesting that WI leads the nation in incarceration rate of blacks. Yes, I agree many Democrat policies make it worse, but I'd guess as usual we wouldn't agree that the right cares just as little about them. I've been very consistent in saying the left is wrong by framing everything by race - it's poverty/education. The wealth gap widens and the poor get left behind no matter who is in charge. Feel free to point to the Republican policies that are helping the poor communities.

Correct, and that also correlates with density, education, poverty. So you aren't talking about a "black" culture you are talking about poor, inner city culture. If it was just the blacks and their culture you would see that rise in murder in those areas I described too. BTW, I did. Yes, there is high correlation, but it's not 1:1. There are a few in the top 10 of each category like Detroit, Birmingham, and Baltimore. There are also some outliers like St.Louis #1 in murder rate, #40 for black % (at about 45% black), or like KC which is in the top for murder rate but only about 13% black. I am saying that IMO the driving factor for violent crime is population density (not much you can do here), poverty, and education. My position is that if we as a country put effort and money into the poorest and worst neighborhoods of our country, the issue with the black communities would correct itself. The culture will come around. You and the GC in general by constantly saying it's black culture seem to be telling me at the very least that education/poverty is not that big of a factor, and at worst no amount of addressing the issue as I describe will help - it's just their culture after all.

I'm open to the discussion. If it's black culture, how do you explain away that the violence is often confined to the poorest, worst neighborhoods and not all the black neighborhoods? If it's their culture as the blacks move to other places like the suburbs or other states, wouldn't we see a rise in murder? Wouldn't the murder rates correlate heavily with the % of blacks in the city?