The mind boggles.
The Democratic Position: A Drag Queen for Every School
2 Likes
This shows that Gretchen Whitmer is the only Democrat crazy in Michigan. What benefit does this bring to the classroom? Those who deny that this isnât âgroomingâ are simply dishonest.
1 Like
Well ⌠I wouldnât use the word âdishonestâ here.
I think what theyâd say is something like this: we need to de-mystify sex. After all, thatâs whatâs been happening for the last fifty years, starting with sex education for teenagers. We really need to get children to realize that there is all sorts of sex, man-woman, man-man, woman-woman ⌠and itâs all perfectly fine and perfectly normal. In fact, the very distinction between a man and a woman is an old-fashioned, repressive, rightwing idea.
And although the actual practical effect of this is to lower the psychological barriers for adult-child sex, and prepare the way for it in the future, I donât think our liberal friends have allowed themselves to believe it. They probably would just rather not think about it, or say, 'Ha, you conservative hypocrites, what-about-X?" [âXâ being some prominent Christian conservative caught being a hypocrite on the issue ⌠my favorite is Billy James Hargis.]
Most liberals â not the radicals, AntiFa etc but genuine liberals â are nice people. They donât want to hurt anyoneâs feelings. Or at least not the feelings of any âmarginalizedâ group. Drag queens are an example.
Not too long from now, theyâll extend their concern to sado-masochists. After all, if itâs consenting activity between adults ⌠etc.
And the infuriating thing is, there is a certain logic to it, in a free society. We donât want the government in our bedrooms. (âWeâ here being one current of the conservative movement â there are other currents who donât have this libertarian outlook.)
So it may be, by having a free society, we have, if not fashioned a rod wherewith to belabor our own backs, have given the radical Left the materials with which to make one.
And what the idiot Left donât realize is that if our free society eventually goes down ⌠there are some non-free societies waiting in the wings to take over.
In China, they donât teach the kids that âanything goesâ with respect to sex, or anything else. They teach them algebra. And there is no âaffirmative actionâ for those of their minority groups who canât get the grades to get into university, no academic morons speculating that the idea of hard work, or objective truth, is an example of âHan supremacyâ.
This is a bit gloomy. So let me offer up a relevant joke, from the past.
Ronald Reagan visits Moscow, and meets with the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev.
They chat, and then Breznev decides to irritate Reagan.
He says, âYour capitol buliding is called the White House, I had a dream last night about your White House. Over it, I saw a flag flying.â
âWhat kind of flag?â asked Reagan. âThe Red Flag, ha ha ha!â said Brezhnev.
Reagan replied, âWhat a coincidence! I had a dream the other night too, and in it, I saw the Kremlin. And it had a flag flying over it.â
âWhat kind of flag?â asked Brezhnev suspiciously.
âOh, it was a Red Flag,â said Reagan, and Brezhnev smiled triumphantly ⌠" ⌠with some writing on it".
âWhat did the writing say?â asked Brezhnev.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
âI donât know,â replied Reagan. âI donât read Chinese.â
I can see where that slippery slope leads. Erstwhile NY Governor Andrew Cuomo was already calling for lowering the voting age to 16. I wonder how long itâll be before the left nominates a Supreme Court justice who says: âI canât say what an adult is. Iâm not a chronologist.â Or: âI canât say what consent is. It depends on what your definition of âisâ is.â
2 Likes
The problem we have is this: the men who wrote the Constitution had a whole range of unconscious assumptions, common sense beliefs (as they would have called them), which they would not have considered necessary to write down.
If those beliefs/assumptions change over the centuries, then rules, laws, constitutions that were written before those beliefs changed, will be interpreted, by those who want to, to fit the new rules.
What is âcruel and unusual punishmentâ? Two hundred years ago, it meant the rack, red-hot irons.
But today, one could argue that it means capital punishment, or even confinement.
And lawyers are infinitely ingenious in making such arguments. Hereâs one, referring to a different legal document in Europe, that is used to justify illegal immigrants remaining in the United Kingdom ⌠provided they can impregnate someone: https://www.lawfirmuk.net/familylife_e
[Whoa, I take that last clause back. No impregnation necessary. Two gay illegal immigrants can claim that they have established a âprivate, family lifeâ. The suicide of the West is horribly fascinating to watch. There will be dozens, hundreds ,of PhD theses written on it in the next century (in Mandarin).]
Iâll be the first to say it is toneless, as right wing Americns lost their sense of humour long ago. And yetâŚ
HmmmâŚso, youâre claiming that she was just joking? And that she would not want to see drag queens in schools?
Both the Left and the Right have their grim, humorless activists. I happen to think there are more, proportionately, on the Left, but itâs a subjective judgement.
But at least we can all agree that bringing drag queens into schools is a terrible idea, and that if someone appears to propose it, itâs obvious that they are just joking. Like the famous proposal by Jonathan Swift, to deal with food shortages by eating Irish children.
Right?
So since here we agree, perhaps we can get together to urge the mayor of New York City to make it clear that he was just joking, when he proposed essentially the same thing:
People without a good sense of humor might think he was being serious!
(They do have a funny sense of humor in New York City: they condemn Robert E. Lee as a âtraitorâ, and pass a resolution honoring Ethyl Rosenberg, who was a Soviet spy. [ https://www.newsmax.com/US/new-york-city-council-honors-ethel-rosenberg/2015/09/30/id/694108/ ] Ha ha ha. Iâm sure they do this to point out how humorless we old rightwingers are. They were just joking!!!)
And hereâs another thing that ⌠well, didnât actually happen? Was just a made-up story to get humorless old conservatives all riled up? âŚ
Okay ⌠we can all agree. Itâs wrong to kill and eat children, and anyone proposing it is just being ironic. Itâs wrong to expose children to sexual eccentrics [Iâm being polite here], and anyone proposing it is obviously just joking.
Thank goodness we can all agree on this.
Dame Edna Evarage.
Someone every Australian (and most British) has known since the 1970s. Talked about in schools even.
Hello Possums.
The far left sends out trial balloons on many issues, both as a joke and seriously. They are trying to see if it will stick. If it does they go for it.
Killing children after they survived late term abortions was one of them. It has stuck with many on the far left, including many of the people who are demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court. Those, like I, who support early term abortions found it totally unacceptable. If thatâs the choice between their extreme view and outlawing abortions I have to say no to abortions.
The left is so extreme that they leave many moderates out of the discussion.
And no, if the left tells @Patooka to put drag queens in the schools for young children, he will support it. because itâs his duty to support his party.
Agreed. and they are not alone. Crowder, for example.
Nice try. For Americans who donât know who is being referred to here, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Humphries.
Heâs brilliant, by the way. Look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkjqLzQgCd0
And, hard to believe as it might be nowadays, his work was was devoid of overt sexuality, other than the âCarry-onâ raised-eyebrow suggestions that would have gone over the heads of children in those days.
Whatâs happening now is the sexualization of children. Parents are encouraged to bring their children to a âGay Prideâ celebration, where a neon sign proclaims âItâs not gonna lick itself.â
This is what the Left is working for. All the bs about âjokingâ and other attempts to normalize the abnormal â why hasnât anyone mentioned that female characters in Shakespeareâs time were played by boys? See, itâs normal! â all this is in the aid of teaching six year olds that sex is just another way of having fun ⌠sex of any type.
Down we go.
This is for my fellow right-wing reactionaries.
Itâs not just conservatives who understand whatâs going on, and who have a commonsense reaction to it.
Thereâs a very interesting publication, Spiked!, which has its origins in revolutionary Marxism, believe it or not. You can read about it here (although, as with many Wikipedia articles, this one is heavily edited by Lefties â nonetheless, itâs pretty fair): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiked_(magazine)
Hereâs their take on this issue:
My AG, btw it was a joke that fell on land everyone laughed except you guys.
Might I note my wife supported this in the literal just to piss you guys off. Then made me think well if its just to piss them yeah. At this point, ya know, itâs probably war. Iâm surprised no one died in AZ last night. Either my side is a bunch of p0000ies or the cops came down really hard really fast.
So Iâm a bit confused.
If the idea of drag queens in school is so unthinkable that anyone who proposes it is obviously joking ⌠like someone jokingly saying we should execute children who donât do their homework ⌠why are liberals pushing it in New York City, and elsewhere?
Either itâs a good idea - or at least harmless â or itâs so absurd that proposing it is obviously a joke.
Which is it?
The gays, queers and whatevers are not joking or lying about any of this. They want their behavior to become mainstream and public, and they want to shame you and stuff it down your throat.
I just came home from a new musical about Robin Hood. It was not very good. Sure enough, they had gratuitous gay scenes and one gay character. They think this is necessary, and itâs becoming trite. This theater group is also big into using the proper pronouns for each of their cast members. That too is becoming trite very quickly.
Live theater has to fight to survive, and this isnât helping. I have nothing against gay characters in plays as long as itâs connected with the plot or message. Gratuitously sticking them in is tiresome and quickly becoming a cliche.
Edited to add âTorch Song Trilogyâ by Harvey Feinstein was an excellent play and example of treating the gay experience well. Gratuitous characters is not.
1 Like
Frankly I donât care about logic anymore they can do whatever they want to piss you off after Roe v. Wade being over turned. I support them even though I disagree because you guys were just out of line more than they ever could be.
Of course. Your attitude is the correct one, and itâs one I hope everyone on my side eventually has.
Itâs a war, You choose sides. The side you choose is not going to be 100% perfect, the other side is not going to be 100% evil ⌠but we must act in such a way as to maximize our sideâs chances for victory.
So we overlook or minimize our sideâs crimes, and focus on and maximize the other sideâs crimes.
If someone on our side, during WWII, had pointed out that the German were awarding Iron Crosses to certain Jews, or that the Red Army was raping its way across Germany â he would NOT have been very popular. Had he called attention to the mass rapes committed by our boys in Okinawa, he would probably have been lynched.
It was a war. You have to take into account whether what you say will aid the enemy, even if what you say is the truth.
America is in the early stages of a war. Thatâs how both sides will, increasingly, act.
Some tactical advice to you, United: you will notice in the debates here, when one side makes a really good, irrefutable point ⌠the other side just ignores it. They donât reply. This is the smart thing to do tactically.
Thatâs a dangerous attitude to have. These people you call enemy pay taxes same as you. More importantly, these people who you call enemy donât realise they are in a war. If that is the lifestyle you want, everyone starts to become very aware of the phrase âwithout restraintâ.
Countries where thatâs a thing are not good countries to live in.
No, we are just supposed to roll over let guys like you, @Patooka, take over. You would love that. You are not even a citizen of this country and yet you have the arrogance to say that you have the right to tell us how to live. You take the right to confiscate our income and savings, which makes us into slaves of the state. You take the right to let criminals to run free.
As I have said previously, you have right to move to California and make it into your concept of the neo-socialist - fascist state. All I ask is that I want to live in a free state that will not be run by your brand of tyranny, but thatâs too much for you. You need to control all human beings through your all powerful, fascist government.
Thatâs right. Youâve got me. You know, despite the fact that all my critiques towards the US are towards what the government should not do to its people, I am clearly a fascist.
But at least Iâm consistent. I feel the same way about Australiaâs government too. Apparently, thatâs fascism.