Conservative Ideology 2024: NOTHING BUT LIES AND FEARMONGERING

[Brooklyn]

Madison Cawthorn: There are Republican cocaine orgies in Congress

Sarah Palin: I’d like to announce that I’m running for Congress

https://images.gawker.com/18k4tzwdqgp2rjpg/original.jpg


Now that the Savioress of the Republican party is divorced, her political career is pretty much over.

As for the Republican drug orgies, those will never end.

[cradleandshoot]

Which books are going to be banned now?

Any that mention boys, girls, moms, dads...or just those which mention two mommies or two daddies or...

And at what age can any mention of sexual attraction be mentioned...after high school perhaps?

Which books are going to be banned now?

For starters... Dr Suess, anything by Mark Twain, especially Tom Sawyer, to kill a mockingbird for use of racist terminology common for that time.

https://www.houstoniamag.com/arts-and-c ... books-week
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/ ... ls/2022/03

but what this law requires is zero 'sexual instruction', meaning. apparently, gender instruction because 'sex ed' isn't taught at all pre 6th grade...so, any book that includes any mention of gender roles like mommies and daddies?

I suppose concentrating on mundane things like reading, writing and math and maybe history and stuff like that. I don't know if it is the business of any school to enlighten children about gender roles. I'm not against it being discussed in a classroom if a student asks. I do think the teacher has to be careful about how they structure the discussion.

ANY book that depicts a family does that.
Usually those "gender roles" are one male (daddy), one female(mommy), kids...that's how schools"enlighten children about gender roles"...and some folks want that to be the ONLY way.

I don't think anyone is asking teachers to not be careful...the question is whether they should be "careful" to be sure that those with families that are not as commonly represented are acknowledged as no big deal as well...or they should be "careful" to never do so...

To be clear, I'm not (nor do I think anyone else on here) are suggesting that these issues should receive heavy or detailed discussion of sexual intercourse or such at young ages...but the question is whether the STATE should be defining exactly what is said or not said in a classroom or, alternatively, that such should be handled by the educators.

I agree, I think the state should not be dictating what should be said in a classroom. That being said what is said in some classrooms could get into some dicey areas to say the least. IMO there is no state law that could ever make a difference. Teachers have a hard enough time as it is teaching basic fundamentals without having to worry about crossing any lines about what is discussed in class.

[a fan]

\
From your post above, it appears as if you would have no objection to a teacher discussing really anything with kids 3-8. That to me is disqualifying if you want to be treated seriously in this discussion.

Yep. That's me. The crazy guy who has no problem whatsoever if my daughter's teacher uses the words "boy", "girl" and "family" in front of her.

I LOVE that you haven't bothered to read the bill. Classic Pete.

I haven’t?

Are you aware that over 50% of DEMOCRATS support the bill WHEN THEY READ THE BILL?

When they SAY they have read the bill.....just like you, Pete. You think no one noticed that you didn't answer.....you, in fact, haven't bothered to read the bill.

And hilariously, as usual, you haven't paid attention that I haven't said one way or the other as to whether I support the bill.

I support this bill. Wanna know why? Because there are going to be one of two outcomes.

1. the bill passes, and nothing changes....no one taught sex ed before 6th grade in FLA anyway, so who cares?

2. the other portion of the bill that prohibits, and I quote, "classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur.”.....is going to be enforced via lawsuits.

Pete is too ideologically stupid to understand that the LBGTQ community is also protected by this law. In other words, if a parent sees a book that has a family in it, and it's a man, woman and child being used in a classroom? They can sue for having "classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur."

And i wouldn't wager against that lawsuit winning. It's the heart of that communities complaints....we teach our kids Pete's version of what a family is here in America in public schools, and always have. Pete just gave them a tool to fight back with...this new law....but he's hilariously ideologically incompetent....he doesn't get it.

[Peter Brown]

\
From your post above, it appears as if you would have no objection to a teacher discussing really anything with kids 3-8. That to me is disqualifying if you want to be treated seriously in this discussion.

Yep. That's me. The crazy guy who has no problem whatsoever if my daughter's teacher uses the words "boy", "girl" and "family" in front of her.

I LOVE that you haven't bothered to read the bill. Classic Pete.

I haven’t?

Are you aware that over 50% of DEMOCRATS support the bill WHEN THEY READ THE BILL?

When they SAY they have read the bill.....just like you, Pete. You think no one noticed that you didn't answer.....you, in fact, haven't bothered to read the bill.

And hilariously, as usual, you haven't paid attention that I haven't said one way or the other as to whether I support the bill.

I support this bill. Wanna know why? Because there are going to be one of two outcomes.

1. the bill passes, and nothing changes....no one taught sex ed before 6th grade in FLA anyway, so who cares?

2. the other portion of the bill that prohibits, and I quote, "classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur.”.....is going to be enforced via lawsuits.

Pete is too ideologically stupid to understand that the LBGTQ community is also protected by this law. In other words, if a parent sees a book that has a family in it, and it's a man, woman and child being used in a classroom? They can sue for having "classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur."

And i wouldn't wager against that lawsuit winning. It's the heart of that communities complaints....we teach our kids Pete's version of what a family is here in America in public schools, and always have. Pete just gave them a tool to fight back with...this new law....but he's hilariously ideologically incompetent....he doesn't get it.

This is all I hear from you

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cb3Gti0A ... =copy_link

(I literally can’t get enough of this clip youth athletic has wrecked my weekend)

[a fan]

This is all I hear from you

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cb3Gti0A ... =copy_link

So, when all else fails, you tell me "look over there....a squirrel".

Dude. Get all the R's in office you like. I get richer, and so do my liberal and moderate buddies.

It's FANTASTIC that your identity rests on thinking that voting in R's makes a bunch of lacrosse fans miserable.

How dumb do you have to be to think that a bunch of lacrosse fans aren't by and large conservative?

The best part is----you're not conservative, Pete. You're a Republican. If DeSantis was made President, and increased the size of the government by 50%....and you know that's what he'd do....you'd cheer. Why? Because he has a little R by his name, and that's all you care about.

Meanwhile, American culture will continue its march to the left....just as it has every year since America has founded.

DeSantis gets my vote. Can't wait for the tax breaks, Pete!

[Farfromgeneva]

Which books are going to be banned now?

Any that mention boys, girls, moms, dads...or just those which mention two mommies or two daddies or...

And at what age can any mention of sexual attraction be mentioned...after high school perhaps?

Which books are going to be banned now?

For starters... Dr Suess, anything by Mark Twain, especially Tom Sawyer, to kill a mockingbird for use of racist terminology common for that time.

https://www.houstoniamag.com/arts-and-c ... books-week
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/ ... ls/2022/03

but what this law requires is zero 'sexual instruction', meaning. apparently, gender instruction because 'sex ed' isn't taught at all pre 6th grade...so, any book that includes any mention of gender roles like mommies and daddies?

I suppose concentrating on mundane things like reading, writing and math and maybe history and stuff like that. I don't know if it is the business of any school to enlighten children about gender roles. I'm not against it being discussed in a classroom if a student asks. I do think the teacher has to be careful about how they structure the discussion.

ANY book that depicts a family does that.
Usually those "gender roles" are one male (daddy), one female(mommy), kids...that's how schools"enlighten children about gender roles"...and some folks want that to be the ONLY way.

I don't think anyone is asking teachers to not be careful...the question is whether they should be "careful" to be sure that those with families that are not as commonly represented are acknowledged as no big deal as well...or they should be "careful" to never do so...

To be clear, I'm not (nor do I think anyone else on here) are suggesting that these issues should receive heavy or detailed discussion of sexual intercourse or such at young ages...but the question is whether the STATE should be defining exactly what is said or not said in a classroom or, alternatively, that such should be handled by the educators.

I agree, I think the state should not be dictating what should be said in a classroom. That being said what is said in some classrooms could get into some dicey areas to say the least. IMO there is no state law that could ever make a difference. Teachers have a hard enough time as it is teaching basic fundamentals without having to worry about crossing any lines about what is discussed in class.

That would have you clearly opposed to this florida bill then.

[Peter Brown]

This is all I hear from you

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cb3Gti0A ... =copy_link

So, when all else fails, you tell me "look over there....a squirrel".

Dude. Get all the R's in office you like. I get richer, and so do my liberal and moderate buddies.

It's FANTASTIC that your identity rests on thinking that voting in R's makes a bunch of lacrosse fans miserable.

How dumb do you have to be to think that a bunch of lacrosse fans aren't by and large conservative?

The best part is----you're not conservative, Pete. You're a Republican. If DeSantis was made President, and increased the size of the government by 50%....and you know that's what he'd do....you'd cheer. Why? Because he has a little R by his name, and that's all you care about.

Meanwhile, American culture will continue its march to the left....just as it has every year since America has founded.

DeSantis gets my vote. Can't wait for the tax breaks, Pete!

This is so dumb, I don’t know if it’s really worth replying to. But alas, I’m generous in spirit.

I guarantee you a fan, you’ve met no person in person or online *more conservative* than I.

Want to reduce the federal government by 50% or more? You’ve got my unyielding support.

Want judges who are strict constitutionalists? I’m helping you.

Want to sell off nearly every federal asset other than the military? I’m your man.

There’s really no issue where you’d find me other than on the side of ‘conservative’ with two exceptions:

1) abortion (I’m reluctantly okay until the 16th week)

2) healthcare (I support a modified public plan for preventative including dental, plus basic services, as well as emergency…unfortunately for libs, my plan won’t cover sex changes nor psychotherapy)

I’d move DC to Plano Texas. If you forced me to keep every agency, I’d move each one to a different city.

As far as state and local government, I prefer different approaches…allow a state like Illinois or New Jersey to fail, watch states like Florida succeed.

Any further questions?

[a fan]

This is all I hear from you

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cb3Gti0A ... =copy_link

So, when all else fails, you tell me "look over there....a squirrel".

Dude. Get all the R's in office you like. I get richer, and so do my liberal and moderate buddies.

It's FANTASTIC that your identity rests on thinking that voting in R's makes a bunch of lacrosse fans miserable.

How dumb do you have to be to think that a bunch of lacrosse fans aren't by and large conservative?

The best part is----you're not conservative, Pete. You're a Republican. If DeSantis was made President, and increased the size of the government by 50%....and you know that's what he'd do....you'd cheer. Why? Because he has a little R by his name, and that's all you care about.

Meanwhile, American culture will continue its march to the left....just as it has every year since America has founded.

DeSantis gets my vote. Can't wait for the tax breaks, Pete!

Want to reduce the federal government by 50% or more? You’ve got my unyielding support.

Says the guy how supports DeSantis without question. You're full of it, Pete. And everyone here knows it.

If you BELIEVED your own nonsense? You'd find a politician who REALLY cut government, and bankroll them. So would your party, Pete.

What did you do instead?

You put Trump in office, who promptly made the Federal Government 50% bigger in just four years.

You put DeSantis in office, who promptly made the Florida Government 10% bigger in just one year.

You cheered for them both, and brag about the economic results of this policy of Big Government.

You can't run and hide from this, Pete. We have months and years of your posts, bragging about the economy the Trump and DeSantis brought us....

[Peter Brown]

This is all I hear from you

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cb3Gti0A ... =copy_link

So, when all else fails, you tell me "look over there....a squirrel".

Dude. Get all the R's in office you like. I get richer, and so do my liberal and moderate buddies.

It's FANTASTIC that your identity rests on thinking that voting in R's makes a bunch of lacrosse fans miserable.

How dumb do you have to be to think that a bunch of lacrosse fans aren't by and large conservative?

The best part is----you're not conservative, Pete. You're a Republican. If DeSantis was made President, and increased the size of the government by 50%....and you know that's what he'd do....you'd cheer. Why? Because he has a little R by his name, and that's all you care about.

Meanwhile, American culture will continue its march to the left....just as it has every year since America has founded.

DeSantis gets my vote. Can't wait for the tax breaks, Pete!

Want to reduce the federal government by 50% or more? You’ve got my unyielding support.

Says the guy how supports DeSantis without question. You're full of it, Pete. And everyone here knows it.

If you BELIEVED your own nonsense? You'd find a politician who REALLY cut government, and bankroll them. So would your party, Pete.

What did you do instead?

You put Trump in office, who promptly made the Federal Government 50% bigger in just four years.

You put DeSantis in office, who promptly made the Florida Government 10% bigger in just one year.

You cheered for them both, and brag about the economic results of this policy of Big Government.

You can't run and hide from this, Pete. We have months and years of your posts, bragging about the economy the Trump and DeSantis brought us....

Again, your ability to assume things really has no equal on Fanlax, or anywhere for that matter.

I was and remain a massive supporter of Rand Paul as well as Justin Amash. Love both guys, but they don’t understand social issues like Ron, so their effectiveness is diminished. Ron doesn’t enjoy the ability to effectively promote those two’s government philosophy, but I assure you he agrees with it. Being a Governor carries far different responsibilities and real world hurdles than being a non-executive Senator.

[a fan]

Again, your ability to assume things really has no equal on Fanlax, or anywhere for that matter.

Nope. All it requires is an ability to read and remember your posts, Pete. No one here is as stupid as you pretend to be. We can all read.

You support Big Government Republicans, so long as they stick it to the gays....you're good.

Just like millions of your fellow evangelicals, Pete.

[CU88]

Cotton's state of Arkansas has a Republican governor, a Republican legislature, and an all-Republican Congressional delegation
it's one of the 5 poorest states in the country

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1 ... 1817067527

Sen. Cotton (R-AR) fear-mongers about life in a city:

“[Dems] want to make us all poor. They want to make you live in downtown areas, and high-rise buildings, and walk to work, or take the subway, or ride an electric scooter, or whatever it is that Pete Buttigieg takes to work.”

[CU88]

Fact Check: At the Trump rally in Michigan, Republican House Representative Lisa McClain falsely claimed Osama bin Laden was caught by Trump.

No, Lisa, Osama bin Laden was caught in 2011 under the Obama administration.

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status ... 5519394817

According to the DEPLORABLES, 2xIMPOTUS o d also won at Gettysburg, stormed Normandy, invented Jell-o, and took down the Berlin Wall.

[cradleandshoot]

Which books are going to be banned now?

Any that mention boys, girls, moms, dads...or just those which mention two mommies or two daddies or...

And at what age can any mention of sexual attraction be mentioned...after high school perhaps?

Which books are going to be banned now?

For starters... Dr Suess, anything by Mark Twain, especially Tom Sawyer, to kill a mockingbird for use of racist terminology common for that time.

https://www.houstoniamag.com/arts-and-c ... books-week
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/ ... ls/2022/03

but what this law requires is zero 'sexual instruction', meaning. apparently, gender instruction because 'sex ed' isn't taught at all pre 6th grade...so, any book that includes any mention of gender roles like mommies and daddies?

I suppose concentrating on mundane things like reading, writing and math and maybe history and stuff like that. I don't know if it is the business of any school to enlighten children about gender roles. I'm not against it being discussed in a classroom if a student asks. I do think the teacher has to be careful about how they structure the discussion.

ANY book that depicts a family does that.
Usually those "gender roles" are one male (daddy), one female(mommy), kids...that's how schools"enlighten children about gender roles"...and some folks want that to be the ONLY way.

I don't think anyone is asking teachers to not be careful...the question is whether they should be "careful" to be sure that those with families that are not as commonly represented are acknowledged as no big deal as well...or they should be "careful" to never do so...

To be clear, I'm not (nor do I think anyone else on here) are suggesting that these issues should receive heavy or detailed discussion of sexual intercourse or such at young ages...but the question is whether the STATE should be defining exactly what is said or not said in a classroom or, alternatively, that such should be handled by the educators.

I agree, I think the state should not be dictating what should be said in a classroom. That being said what is said in some classrooms could get into some dicey areas to say the least. IMO there is no state law that could ever make a difference. Teachers have a hard enough time as it is teaching basic fundamentals without having to worry about crossing any lines about what is discussed in class.

That would have you clearly opposed to this florida bill then.

That would be correct. My opposition would not be because it has been advertised as a don't say gay bill. It is because the government of the state of Florida is trying to restrict the free speech of teachers. If you can do it in this instance you can muzzle teachers in any state. FTR, I am not talking about giving teachers free rein to teach whatever they want. Teachers should have the freedom to answer the questions their students will be asking them.

[Peter Brown]

Which books are going to be banned now?

Any that mention boys, girls, moms, dads...or just those which mention two mommies or two daddies or...

And at what age can any mention of sexual attraction be mentioned...after high school perhaps?

Which books are going to be banned now?

For starters... Dr Suess, anything by Mark Twain, especially Tom Sawyer, to kill a mockingbird for use of racist terminology common for that time.

https://www.houstoniamag.com/arts-and-c ... books-week
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/ ... ls/2022/03

but what this law requires is zero 'sexual instruction', meaning. apparently, gender instruction because 'sex ed' isn't taught at all pre 6th grade...so, any book that includes any mention of gender roles like mommies and daddies?

I suppose concentrating on mundane things like reading, writing and math and maybe history and stuff like that. I don't know if it is the business of any school to enlighten children about gender roles. I'm not against it being discussed in a classroom if a student asks. I do think the teacher has to be careful about how they structure the discussion.

ANY book that depicts a family does that.
Usually those "gender roles" are one male (daddy), one female(mommy), kids...that's how schools"enlighten children about gender roles"...and some folks want that to be the ONLY way.

I don't think anyone is asking teachers to not be careful...the question is whether they should be "careful" to be sure that those with families that are not as commonly represented are acknowledged as no big deal as well...or they should be "careful" to never do so...

To be clear, I'm not (nor do I think anyone else on here) are suggesting that these issues should receive heavy or detailed discussion of sexual intercourse or such at young ages...but the question is whether the STATE should be defining exactly what is said or not said in a classroom or, alternatively, that such should be handled by the educators.

I agree, I think the state should not be dictating what should be said in a classroom. That being said what is said in some classrooms could get into some dicey areas to say the least. IMO there is no state law that could ever make a difference. Teachers have a hard enough time as it is teaching basic fundamentals without having to worry about crossing any lines about what is discussed in class.

That would have you clearly opposed to this florida bill then.

That would be correct. My opposition would not be because it has been advertised as a don't say gay bill. It is because the government of the state of Florida is trying to restrict the free speech of teachers. If you can do it in this instance you can muzzle teachers in any state. FTR, I am not talking about giving teachers free rein to teach whatever they want. Teachers should have the freedom to answer the questions their students will be asking them.

I’m gonna have to disagree with you here, Cradle. This law isn’t about speech, it’s about protecting REALLY young kids 3-8.

We’ve already seen how the Fanlax FLP don’t realize the age issue of this bill; their obtuseness is nectar to the left politicians and media who want you confused about all aspects of this VERY POPULAR bill.

We’ve also seen numerous instances where not only are there enough lunatic teachers to warrant this bill, but we’ve also seen where even the Fanlax FLP (let alone truly committed marxists!) have zero regulator on the dangers of discussing age-inappropriate topics with kids in KINDERGARTEN THROUGH THIRD GRADE.

if anyone remains confused as to why these kids need protecting from the left, go see how innocent kids in those grades are, then read up on how the left tries to infiltrate schools to spread their ‘philosophy’:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california ... 1564441342

The left, as they always do, went too far; we are pushing them back to square one where they belong.

[Farfromgeneva]

Still taking from a childless, ergo worthless, position.

Cradle, I don’t see the distinction you seem to. “Don’t say gay” is the same thing as discussing the freedom to speak/operate as a trained professional. I see it as a distinction without any difference. If something is done unprofessionally within the standard code of conduct, then there’s already protocols in place. It’s the reason a real and true conservative wouldn’t want to add this law because it’s layering on unnecessary and arbitrage laden, explicit codified legislation with nothing but downside. True conservatives should want less legislation, not culture wars and idiot baiting behavior from politicians and their sycophant acolytes.

[NattyBohChamps04]

It's really hard to have meaningful discussions with idiocy of this magnitude exploding through American life. Literally one minute apart.



source.

[Peter Brown]

It's really hard to have meaningful discussions with idiocy of this magnitude exploding through American life. Literally one minute apart.



source.

Though unintentionally you’re correct (Nick Adams is in fact not too swift), Adams is on to a more accurate symptom when he differentiates an *individual* being deplatformed, defamed permanently on Google, and being disaggregated from any income (the Left’s preferred attack mode)….versus a multinational corporation with $$ billions being boycotted. His initial facile tweet unfortunately gave the left a cheap, hollow, temporary dopamine rush to rally around (see post above).

[NattyBohChamps04]

Nice to see you trying to define his differentiation, when he offered none himself.

Cancel culture is 100% OK by the right when it's individual people, ideologies or corporations you don't agree with. It's so much easier to get banned on right-wing social media than it is in the corporatists social media sites like Twitter.

[MDlaxfan76]

Still taking from a childless, ergo worthless, position.
Referring to Petey, of course.

Cradle, I don’t see the distinction you seem to. “Don’t say gay” is the same thing as discussing the freedom to speak/operate as a trained professional. I see it as a distinction without any difference. If something is done unprofessionally within the standard code of conduct, then there’s already protocols in place. It’s the reason a real and true conservative wouldn’t want to add this law because it’s layering on unnecessary and arbitrage laden, explicit codified legislation with nothing but downside. True conservatives should want less legislation, not culture wars and idiot baiting behavior from politicians and their sycophant acolytes.

Seems to me that cradle is saying much the same, albeit he's uncomfortable generally around the specific issues of gender and sexuality...so, relies on the free speech rights...this would cut the other way, for instance, that a teacher could be a Holocaust denier in the classroom.

Seems to me that the State shouldn't be involved in circumscribing free speech, though educators should be quite involved in making sure that truthful reality is what children learn. And, certainly there are topics that children should learn about in ways that are 'age appropriate' meaning not what parents necessarily think should be taught but rather what the children are able to intellectually and emotionally process effectively given their brain development stage. Learning is not easy, so it's ok that topics challenge children to think, but there is definitely an increasing capacity to do so as kids get older. So, educators believe that we should wait on some topics that don't directly matter at the younger ages. The gender alignment of parents does impact children thus the need to address it as early as recognizable, albeit gently...if someone is pushing this too hard, too fast, their bosses should get involved.

[CU88]

BREAKING: This week’s GOP cocaine sex orgy has been CANCELED.

https://twitter.com/TheGoodLiars/status ... 2669208584