On 4/11/24 3:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <pddg1jplu1h6adta0btur2sg3leatg6d8t@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow >>> flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to >>> force Disney because they didn't like what they said.
Nobody believes you.
Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my
granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first
movie (Mary Poppins)
And of course Effa, like most of the left, continues to perpetuate lies, like the "Don't Say Gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from saying they're gay anywhere in the text of the bill.
And Obamacare wasn't ever actually referred to as Obamacare until Republicans tagged it that way But you never objected to using that term,
did you?
Explaining why Florida's 'Parental Rights' bill is called 'don't say gay' and more WHY DO SOME PEOPLE CALL THE BILL 'DON'T SAY GAY'?
The bill as originally filed prohibited school districts from encouraging "classroom discussion" about sexual orientation or gender identity in "primary grade levels". Opponents of the bill interpreted that provision to
be a ban on speaking about LGBTQ topics in classrooms and started using the
"don't say gay" moniker.
When proposed, it was quite accurate.
In article <uvbhk8$2dmiq$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/11/24 3:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <pddg1jplu1h6adta0btur2sg3leatg6d8t@4ax.com>,And Obamacare wasn't ever actually referred to as Obamacare until
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow >>>>> flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to >>>>> force Disney because they didn't like what they said.
Nobody believes you.
Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my
granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first >>>> movie (Mary Poppins)
And of course Effa, like most of the left, continues to perpetuate lies, >>> like the "Don't Say Gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from saying >>> they're gay anywhere in the text of the bill.
Republicans tagged it that way But you never objected to using that term,
did you?
Neither did Obama. He called it that, too. And his campaign sold it on t-shirts.
Explaining why Florida's 'Parental Rights' bill is called 'don't say gay' >>> and more WHY DO SOME PEOPLE CALL THE BILL 'DON'T SAY GAY'?
The bill as originally filed prohibited school districts from encouraging >>> "classroom discussion" about sexual orientation or gender identity in
"primary grade levels". Opponents of the bill interpreted that provision to >>> be a ban on speaking about LGBTQ topics in classrooms and started using the >>> "don't say gay" moniker.
When proposed, it was quite accurate.
Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as 'don't say gay'.
In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex lives
to themselves and out of the classroom.
Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.
Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my
granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first
movie (Mary Poppins)
Sure. It's Dems that want to ban books. Right.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:11:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as 'don't say
gay'.
In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex lives
to themselves and out of the classroom.
Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.
More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around
here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.
On 4/13/24 12:57 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:11:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as
'don't say gay'.
In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex
lives to themselves and out of the classroom.
Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.
More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around
here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.
Sure. Until it isn't. You start there and they quickly worked their
way up.
That's how it's done. Once you see the nose of a camel in the tent,
it's quickly followed by the rest of the camel.
More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around
here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.
Sure. Until it isn't. You start there and they quickly worked their
way up.
That's how it's done. Once you see the nose of a camel in the tent,
it's quickly followed by the rest of the camel.
Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released"
has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.
Then the Dems staffed the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly with
the most radical hug-a-thug pols in Sacramento to ensure no new crimes
are ever added to the penal code. They wouldn't even make sex
trafficking of minors a 3-strike eligible felony until they were shamed
into it when their refusal to do so made international news. Selling
kids for sex isn't bad enough to warrant prison time for these lunatics.
All this happened bit-by-bit over the course of 10 years as part of a >well-coordinated plan by 'progressive' Democrats to empty our prisons
and jails and neuter the criminal justice system in the state. They knew >they could never do it in one fell swoop even though they had the votes
for it because the boiling frog (the public) would scream holy hell and
vote them all out. So they did it one little bit at a time,
step-by-step, and now here we are, with crime out of control, businesses >shutting down in the major cities and fleeing the state, and the public >wondering how society seemed to have disintegrated overnight.
What has always puzzled me and continues to do so is why? Why do >'progressive' leftists seem to love the idea of living in a lawless >hellscape instead of a civilized society?
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:05:42 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released"
has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.
So was Charles Manson eligible for this?
So was Charles Manson eligible for this?
He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still >alive.
One of his acolytes has already been released.
In article <uvgj0h$3kt9v$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/13/24 12:57 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:11:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:Sure. Until it isn't. You start there and they quickly worked their
Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as
'don't say gay'.
In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex
lives to themselves and out of the classroom.
Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.
More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around
here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.
way up.
That's how it's done. Once you see the nose of a camel in the tent,
it's quickly followed by the rest of the camel.
You guys are the geniuses of incrementalism. You did it masterfully with destroying the criminal justice system here in California.
It started with Newsom unilaterally doing away with the death penalty
despite the fact that the people of California not only passed it into
law through their elected representatives, but then they reaffirmed
their support for it overwhelmingly in two subsequent ballot measures.
But Newsom overrode all 40 million of us and imposed his own political preference by fiat.
(There's that precious 'muh democracy' that y'all are always so worried about.)
And he and his fellow Dems in the Assembly said, "Don't worry, even
without the death penalty the really bad guys will still be in prison
for life without parole."
A few years go by, then the same characters start talking about how not giving people the chance for parole is too cruel, so they started
passing laws giving LWOP convicts the ability to challenge their
sentences and have them converted to life *with* possibility of parole.
Then came Prop 47 and Prop 57. One started the process of releasing all non-violent criminals from state prisons. The other reclassified a whole
host of objectively violent crimes as 'non-violent' so they would
qualify for release and downgraded dozens of felonies to misdemeanors so criminals wouldn't even be sent to prison in the first place. This was
sold to the public by Kamala Harris as "The Safe Schools and
Neighborhoods Initiative".
Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released"
has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.
Then the Dems staffed the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly with
the most radical hug-a-thug pols in Sacramento to ensure no new crimes
are ever added to the penal code. They wouldn't even make sex
trafficking of minors a 3-strike eligible felony until they were shamed
into it when their refusal to do so made international news. Selling
kids for sex isn't bad enough to warrant prison time for these lunatics.
All this happened bit-by-bit over the course of 10 years as part of a well-coordinated plan by 'progressive' Democrats to empty our prisons
and jails and neuter the criminal justice system in the state. They knew
they could never do it in one fell swoop even though they had the votes
for it because the boiling frog (the public) would scream holy hell and
vote them all out. So they did it one little bit at a time,
step-by-step, and now here we are, with crime out of control, businesses shutting down in the major cities and fleeing the state, and the public wondering how society seemed to have disintegrated overnight.
What has always puzzled me and continues to do so is why? Why do 'progressive' leftists seem to love the idea of living in a lawless
hellscape instead of a civilized society?
On Apr 14, 2024 at 5:29:11 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:05:42 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released" >>> has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.
So was Charles Manson eligible for this?
He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still alive.
One of his acolytes has already been released.
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 08:42:55 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around
here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.
Sure. Until it isn't. You start there and they quickly worked their
way up.
That's how it's done. Once you see the nose of a camel in the tent,
it's quickly followed by the rest of the camel.
You seriously believe 5 and 6 year olds should be exposed to the same materials as 16 and 17 year olds? That's the clear implication of what
you said.
I remember in jr high we had our sex ed class where having seen "Boy
to Man" in grades 7 and 8, in grade 9 the teacher asked us if we'd
like to see "Girl to Woman" (which is what the girls' portion of the
class had been viewing). It was mostly ho-hum and I learned little.
(While I didn't have an older sister I had found my Mom's pads and so
forth and had been curious enough to check out at the library
precisely what they had been used for - and learned what it meant when
they weren't needed - e.g. either pregnancy or menopause - I didn't
yet know menstruation could be altered by the pill)
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:30:28 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
So was Charles Manson eligible for this?
He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still
alive.
One of his acolytes has already been released.
That's Squeaky right?
On 4/14/24 3:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uvgj0h$3kt9v$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>You are exhausting.
wrote:
On 4/13/24 12:57 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:11:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:Sure. Until it isn't. You start there and they quickly worked their
Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as
'don't say gay'.
In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex
lives to themselves and out of the classroom.
Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.
More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around >>>> here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.
way up.
That's how it's done. Once you see the nose of a camel in the tent,
it's quickly followed by the rest of the camel.
You guys are the geniuses of incrementalism. You did it masterfully with
destroying the criminal justice system here in California.
It started with Newsom unilaterally doing away with the death penalty
despite the fact that the people of California not only passed it into
law through their elected representatives, but then they reaffirmed
their support for it overwhelmingly in two subsequent ballot measures.
But Newsom overrode all 40 million of us and imposed his own political
preference by fiat.
(There's that precious 'muh democracy' that y'all are always so worried
about.)
And he and his fellow Dems in the Assembly said, "Don't worry, even
without the death penalty the really bad guys will still be in prison
for life without parole."
A few years go by, then the same characters start talking about how not
giving people the chance for parole is too cruel, so they started
passing laws giving LWOP convicts the ability to challenge their
sentences and have them converted to life *with* possibility of parole.
Then came Prop 47 and Prop 57. One started the process of releasing all
non-violent criminals from state prisons. The other reclassified a whole
host of objectively violent crimes as 'non-violent' so they would
qualify for release and downgraded dozens of felonies to misdemeanors so
criminals wouldn't even be sent to prison in the first place. This was
sold to the public by Kamala Harris as "The Safe Schools and
Neighborhoods Initiative".
Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released"
has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.
Then the Dems staffed the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly with
the most radical hug-a-thug pols in Sacramento to ensure no new crimes
are ever added to the penal code. They wouldn't even make sex
trafficking of minors a 3-strike eligible felony until they were shamed
into it when their refusal to do so made international news. Selling
kids for sex isn't bad enough to warrant prison time for these lunatics.
All this happened bit-by-bit over the course of 10 years as part of a
well-coordinated plan by 'progressive' Democrats to empty our prisons
and jails and neuter the criminal justice system in the state. They knew
they could never do it in one fell swoop even though they had the votes
for it because the boiling frog (the public) would scream holy hell and
vote them all out. So they did it one little bit at a time,
step-by-step, and now here we are, with crime out of control, businesses
shutting down in the major cities and fleeing the state, and the public
wondering how society seemed to have disintegrated overnight.
What has always puzzled me and continues to do so is why? Why do
'progressive' leftists seem to love the idea of living in a lawless
hellscape instead of a civilized society?
Apr 15, 2024 at 12:04:35 AM PDT, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:
Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:30:28 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:
So was Charles Manson eligible for this?
He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still >>>alive.
One of his acolytes has already been released.
That's Squeaky right?
Yes, and Leslie Van Houten, also. She was the one who stabbed Rosemary >LaBianca 14 times.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 15, 2024 at 12:04:35 AM PDT, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:
Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:30:28 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:
So was Charles Manson eligible for this?
He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still >>>>alive.
One of his acolytes has already been released.
That's Squeaky right?
Yes, and Leslie Van Houten, also. She was the one who stabbed Rosemary >>LaBianca 14 times.
These people followed a cult leader who had targeted a family, then
committed mass murder. I'm confused as to why you don't think prison >rehabilitated them so they can be functioning members of society again.
How dangerous can they possibly be?
On Apr 15, 2024 at 12:04:35 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:30:28 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
So was Charles Manson eligible for this?
He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still
alive.
One of his acolytes has already been released.
That's Squeaky right?
Yes, and Leslie Van Houten, also. She was the one who stabbed Rosemary >LaBianca 14 times.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:24:03 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 15, 2024 at 12:04:35 AM PDT, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:
Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:30:28 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:
So was Charles Manson eligible for this?
He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still >>>>> alive.
One of his acolytes has already been released.
That's Squeaky right?
Yes, and Leslie Van Houten, also. She was the one who stabbed Rosemary
LaBianca 14 times.
These people followed a cult leader who had targeted a family, then
committed mass murder. I'm confused as to why you don't think prison
rehabilitated them so they can be functioning members of society again.
How dangerous can they possibly be?
If you don't have any family members living then there's nothing to
worry about. If you do have a family...
On Apr 15, 2024 at 1:38:35 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/14/24 3:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <uvgj0h$3kt9v$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>You are exhausting.
wrote:
On 4/13/24 12:57 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:11:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote: >>>>>Sure. Until it isn't. You start there and they quickly worked their
Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as
'don't say gay'.
In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex >>>>>> lives to themselves and out of the classroom.
Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.
More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around >>>>> here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If >>>>> it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.
way up.
That's how it's done. Once you see the nose of a camel in the tent,
it's quickly followed by the rest of the camel.
You guys are the geniuses of incrementalism. You did it masterfully with >>> destroying the criminal justice system here in California.
It started with Newsom unilaterally doing away with the death penalty
despite the fact that the people of California not only passed it into >>> law through their elected representatives, but then they reaffirmed
their support for it overwhelmingly in two subsequent ballot measures. >>> But Newsom overrode all 40 million of us and imposed his own political >>> preference by fiat.
(There's that precious 'muh democracy' that y'all are always so worried >>> about.)
And he and his fellow Dems in the Assembly said, "Don't worry, even
without the death penalty the really bad guys will still be in prison
for life without parole."
A few years go by, then the same characters start talking about how not >>> giving people the chance for parole is too cruel, so they started
passing laws giving LWOP convicts the ability to challenge their
sentences and have them converted to life *with* possibility of parole. >>>
Then came Prop 47 and Prop 57. One started the process of releasing all >>> non-violent criminals from state prisons. The other reclassified a whole >>> host of objectively violent crimes as 'non-violent' so they would
qualify for release and downgraded dozens of felonies to misdemeanors so >>> criminals wouldn't even be sent to prison in the first place. This was >>> sold to the public by Kamala Harris as "The Safe Schools and
Neighborhoods Initiative".
Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if >>> he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released" >>> has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.
Then the Dems staffed the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly with >>> the most radical hug-a-thug pols in Sacramento to ensure no new crimes >>> are ever added to the penal code. They wouldn't even make sex
trafficking of minors a 3-strike eligible felony until they were shamed >>> into it when their refusal to do so made international news. Selling
kids for sex isn't bad enough to warrant prison time for these lunatics. >>>
All this happened bit-by-bit over the course of 10 years as part of a
well-coordinated plan by 'progressive' Democrats to empty our prisons
and jails and neuter the criminal justice system in the state. They knew >>> they could never do it in one fell swoop even though they had the votes >>> for it because the boiling frog (the public) would scream holy hell and >>> vote them all out. So they did it one little bit at a time,
step-by-step, and now here we are, with crime out of control, businesses >>> shutting down in the major cities and fleeing the state, and the public >>> wondering how society seemed to have disintegrated overnight.
What has always puzzled me and continues to do so is why? Why do
'progressive' leftists seem to love the idea of living in a lawless
hellscape instead of a civilized society?
Good. Means I'm doing something right if I'm exhausting you people.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 187:45:01 |
| Calls: | 46 |
| Files: | 21,492 |
| Messages: | 63,349 |
