JoeWeber

Not the idea. The idea is that if enough sensible R's like you, the available supply is a questionable proposition at best, bail on the party of Santos, Greene, Boebert, Gosar, Gomert, Trump, The USSC, and so on it sends a message. It's like publicly standing up for LGBTQ rights, women's rights, the rights of people of color and all of the rest even though you know your friends think you're silly. It's not just the right thing to do, it sends a message. In this case, and with respect to Marshall McLuhan, I do think the message is the important bit.

Our of the mouths of babes..... Put your admiration for her in broad daylight: re-register.

Maybe some are being swayed, no one sensible will claim it's not a possibility. But it's the same with drugs, playing rock and roll, and making fart sounds with a cupped hand and your underarm all of which are learned behaviors, too. There is going to be all of that and worse, certainly. I haven't noticed anyone here claiming adults should be making permanent gender change decisions for kids that aren't justifiable as medical necessities. Nor is anyone here advocating that kids should be encouraged to bat around to learn whom they are sexually. Here what I'm getting is that, except for the irredeemably homophobic and naturally bigoted, the starting point needs to be live and let live. There are quite probably 50 to 60 Million LGBTQ folks in America alone. Obviously they aren't churning out 10's of millions of groomed kids a year. Pretty much there isn't a real problem, seems to me.

That's encouraging, thanks. So I guess next up Texas and Florida will ban smart phones, tablets and talking to each other.

Sure, but did anyone pictured on a billboard take a potshot at you? No? Well there it is, and it is just as Brent has so patiently tried to educate us, there is no connection between the desensitizing and normalizing advertisement of AR-15 weapons and shootings of any kind. I'll bet that after seeing those ad's a dozen or so times it doesn't even register consciously anymore, further proving Brents point.

I was inspired to post this by BIGUN's conversation over in the Britney Griner thread. Here in Oregon our schools are way below average national performance, particularly in 3rd grade and beyond reading skills. Like the rest of the country it's Blue in the cities where the Teachers Unions hold sway and Red elsewhere where ignorant local school boards rule town. The problem, as is well known, is that the school boards in many cases would be pleased to use the bible as a tool for teaching reading and the liberal and politically powerful unions won't support any candidate who won't promise more money and the freedom to teach as they choose, per classroom. The outcome is that real science based practices that are proven to be successful in raising kids reading scores aren't used universally so as to avoid broadening the area of offense taking and to keep one's reelection hopes alive. The consequence is that kids, parents, and society suffer. We now have a new Governor, Tina Kotek, a Democrat. She is so new she still squeaks. Literally, she embodies the tax, spend, pander, and hope for the best Liberal. Sadly, she was the better choice out of three. To the point: I think teachers in K-12 classrooms at a minimum shouldn't be free spirits, falsely believing that their innate talents will get the job done of educating our youth. Defined curriculum, according to a national standard, should be taught step by step with the teachers' individual techniques and talents being used to accomplish that task per student, sort of like what it's like to earn your flying certificates. No going off the rails or wasting time as perhaps BIGUN's daughter is suffering. Kids who do great move up and out, kids who are not go to a plan "B" solution, but the majority stay on course. Sto ad arietem If you are bored to tears, our Governor: https://www.opb.org/article/2023/03/03/think-out-loud-conversation-oregon-governor-tina-kotek/

Were they first? OK, then they did it.

Only by way of coincidence. It all, as in every last crappy thing happening in the world, started with Commodore Computers.

Why should you care at all? Being offended by someones sexuality when it does not affect you at all isn't being old fashioned it is being bigoted. Let adults live their one life in any way that gives them hope and pleasure. The bottom line, so to speak, is that whatever gay or trans people are doing they aren't doing it to you and if they are, well, it can't be much of a deal because you don't seem to have noticed.

That's just awful.

These are not personal attacks or even pejorative terms; don't be such a victim, it's unbecoming. Like it or not you are, at least on these pages, easily animated by LGBTQ issues. I personally find your attachment to ridiculous firearms and your certainty that they are in no way associated with mass shootings in a causative way akin to any other belief system if for no other reason than your absolute inability to give an iota, much less an inch, on the subject. Lastly, it's absolutely fair to say you overcompensate just on the odds because all of the rest of us do, too.

Careful, he's probably got a thing against kale, too.

It seems to me you are partly right; you do need you beliefs challenged but only as a vehicle to reinforce what you believe. As I see it, like other religionists, your beliefs form the core of your identity, hence they are unchangeable no matter the quality of the challenge.

What is the travel time to Nagambie from Melbourne CBD?

Unless you're in opposition to teaching kids how to do it, I disagree. Human sexuality is a part of human sociology. I think that it is especially important for kids going home to strongly religious households where acceptance and accommodation of other sexualities and lifestyles, than exist in the parents belief system, aren't taught.

Thanks for clarifying the well known truth. It's not about Christian and/or Conservative viewpoints at all. Conservative economic principles are just a curtain to hide behind.

Thanks to queer triggered people like you, of course. Queer issues, like climate change issues, are real issues not just for queer folk but for all folk. In the case of queer issues I'm affected only because so much bandwidth needs to be dedicated to trying to normalize for people like you what is obviously already normal: queerness. Queer folk are normal folk. Get over it.

The problem you have is that religionists do not see their relationship with secularists as a two way street. Worse, they selfishly can not see that already, and without further erosions of secularists freedoms, they have the upper hand. For religionists too much is still not enough; there is no credible pretense of equity and most certainly there is no ethos of live and let live. Now, you are right to be concerned about the opposition. They are eager for actual fairness; a fairness that will cost you and your tenets. Secularists desire strongly to erode the power of religionists to force their beliefs on their children. They want their wives and daughters free from the yoke religionists hang on their necks, like it or not. They are offended that a tax system we should all be subject too equally confers senseless benefits on religious organizations that must be made up out of the pockets of non believers. The list goes on and on. So really, Coreece, thanks for the advice but as do the religious, we don't want to "let it be".

Doug, this is a hard one for me but I need to follow my heart. What you wrote seriously resonated with me. I have no choice, I am transferring Lippy's free jump to you.

Not to spoil the party but I've hired a lot of lawyers and have had to deal with opposing lawyers too many times. Never once have I been in court or sat for a deposition and wished I'd brought my plumber instead. My experience tells me that most people hate lawyers because they really don't know what lawyers do. They aren't mind readers and they don't need new friends. Yes, they'll listen to your sad story and patiently wait until you are through emoting but all of that will be on the bill you think is outrageous. Instead, learn about the law as it applies to your situation before you sit down at your meeting. Treat it like an advanced class and show up with a paginated notebook with as many of the appropriate documents you could find that you have also read and tried to understand. (I always send that notebook in advance so the meeting is efficient and focused) Be prepared to hear what you do not want to hear and above all else be prepared to do what you are told to do. If you don't like what you hear try another attorney but no matter that's the way it works.

Sure, but what if you were only given permission to kill communists like our Ron (I do hope he got that in writing) but not cross dressers, who were certainly homo's and not Governors, how ever does the problem make it into a loving God's hands?

Either way will they be allowed to represent the gay or drunken accused? What if you weren't just gay and drunk but also were on "Survivor" and found an Idol? What if you greedily saved yourself and not someone you lied to at Tribal Counsel thus swindling your team? Talk about a real problem.

Well you have us again: 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Now you have me curious. By curious so to speak, and you made the argument, that parsing enter and inherit makes it a nonsensical argument. That said, you still have a lot of work to do. So if you are bi-curious but never enter, if you get my drift, are you sexually immoral? Then also what constitutes a drunkard? Anything more than the AMA 3 standard drinks a week? Would my standard 3 standard drinks to get started meet the standard? For that matter, what if you are an unfortunate cheap date and one beer gets you laid is that a two-fer? If you hug your buddy on the way to your new girlfriends car is that a three-fer? I'm thinking that as long as you are being righteous you might take it all the way in and explain just what constitutes who is what in 1 Corinthians 6:9-1.

Not that you'll care but I referenced the Guna people not to pick some far out group for some hypothetical intellectual argument but rather because my very recent personal interactions with the Guna are still fresh in my mind. They are a very interesting study beyond their views about human sexuality; they are artistic and live very primitively while at the same time straddling modernity out of necessity. My experience was that they valued politeness and fairness to each other, and to outsiders, as a primary value. They tend to see acts of friendliness as acts of friendship. When harmed or trespassed against they seem to react very slowly, turning the other cheek, until finally doing something measured to protect their interests. They live for today without thought for tomorrow, the very essence of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The Guna don't need any missionaries to learn to act like Christians. In fact, Christians would be well served to take note of all of the "Christian" behavior in their fellows in the Guna and far beyond. There is a real world out there, Ron, and you are totally missing out.

It was neither far out or hypothetical. It was an example. Your beliefs blind you to science. It is just that simple.