New Youngkin ad starring a parent who wanted Toni Morrison's 'Beloved' removed from schools because

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 17 I was already living on my own with a job and going to college.

This boy's mommy worries about the nightmare he has from reading a book. I don't know who I'm more embarrassed for - the man child, this mom or us a society that we don't vote losers like this off the island.

And so you feel exactly the same way about snowflake liberal college "kids" who insist on safe spaces and trigger warnings - right?

Surely you can distinguish people not tolerating personal attacks against their identity from a Pulitzer award winning novel

What on earth are you babbling about? Many college students demand trigger warnings for any slightly upsetting topic - rape being one of them - and colleges are bending over backward to acquiesce. Yet naturally, you'll defend these idiot snowflakes and insist they be dealt with using kid gloves because they're just too fragile (as ADULTS IN COLLEGE) to participate in uncomfortable discussions. The liberal hypocrisy is deafening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

It really speaks volumes as to how coddled children are from conservative families.

I hope these conservative parents understand that every single one of their coddled children has looked at porn on the internet. Every. single. one.

Exactly, PP! And not only has each and every one--boys and girls alike--looked at porn on the internet, but they've seen all other manner of violence and terrible human behavior on the internet. But the funniest thing of all to me is that these parents actually think their kids read books beyond elementary school! Newsflash--most HS kids (yes, I know there are exceptions) are not reading for pleasure and they're not reading old fashioned books cover to cover. Screen time has killed a lot of that. Ban whatever you want or forbid your child from reading whatever you don't approve of, but just know that 1) they can access any book they want any time, no matter what you say and 2) they ain't that interested in reading anyway. This continues in college too, BTW--not for all but for many kids.

Speak for yourself, weirdo. My kids have their noses in books all the time. Of course they can access whatever they want online. No one is under any illusions otherwise. But it's beyond pathetic that because you have kids who haven't picked up a book in years, you assume everyone else does too. So sad that your kids don't like reading. Mine love it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

It really speaks volumes as to how coddled children are from conservative families.

I hope these conservative parents understand that every single one of their coddled children has looked at porn on the internet. Every. single. one.

That's not true, but even if it were it is a weak argument for saying public schools shouldn't bother to tell parents when they are assigning sexually explicit material. As understood by the many legislators, including Jennifer McClellan and Sam Rasoul, who supported the bill that McAuliffe vetoed.

+1
Plenty of Democrats agree with at least notifying parents when assignments will contain sexually explicit material. Seems the hyper-partisan left - which apparently includes McAuliffe - refuses to admit this fact. Anything to win, I guess.

Let’s put those vetos into context:

“In his first veto message, McAuliffe said ‘this legislation lacks flexibility and would require the label of ‘sexually explicit’ to apply to an artistic work based on a single scene, without further context.’ In his second veto message, he said the Virginia Board of Education had ‘determined that existing state policy regarding sensitive or controversial instructional material is sufficient and that additional action would be unnecessarily burdensome on the instructional process.’”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/27/glenn-youngkins-viral-child-ad-is-missing-important-context/

So basically, he vetoed the first one because it was too restrictive, and then vetoed the second one because VDOE had already determined that existing regulations provided for the kind of notice addressed in the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

It really speaks volumes as to how coddled children are from conservative families.

I hope these conservative parents understand that every single one of their coddled children has looked at porn on the internet. Every. single. one.

Exactly, PP! And not only has each and every one--boys and girls alike--looked at porn on the internet, but they've seen all other manner of violence and terrible human behavior on the internet. But the funniest thing of all to me is that these parents actually think their kids read books beyond elementary school! Newsflash--most HS kids (yes, I know there are exceptions) are not reading for pleasure and they're not reading old fashioned books cover to cover. Screen time has killed a lot of that. Ban whatever you want or forbid your child from reading whatever you don't approve of, but just know that 1) they can access any book they want any time, no matter what you say and 2) they ain't that interested in reading anyway. This continues in college too, BTW--not for all but for many kids.

Speak for yourself, weirdo. My kids have their noses in books all the time. Of course they can access whatever they want online. No one is under any illusions otherwise. But it's beyond pathetic that because you have kids who haven't picked up a book in years, you assume everyone else does too. So sad that your kids don't like reading. Mine love it.

So if your kids picked up Beloved in their own, you would be okay with that since it’s not coming from the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

Post the passages in question from Beloved here. Go ahead.

Still waiting. Not one of you dopes has the nerve to do so. Because you all KNOW how graphic it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 17 I was already living on my own with a job and going to college.

This boy's mommy worries about the nightmare he has from reading a book. I don't know who I'm more embarrassed for - the man child, this mom or us a society that we don't vote losers like this off the island.

And so you feel exactly the same way about snowflake liberal college "kids" who insist on safe spaces and trigger warnings - right?

Surely you can distinguish people not tolerating personal attacks against their identity from a Pulitzer award winning novel

What on earth are you babbling about? Many college students demand trigger warnings for any slightly upsetting topic - rape being one of them - and colleges are bending over backward to acquiesce. Yet naturally, you'll defend these idiot snowflakes and insist they be dealt with using kid gloves because they're just too fragile (as ADULTS IN COLLEGE) to participate in uncomfortable discussions. The liberal hypocrisy is deafening.

Typical whataboutism.

Funny you should mention "the liberal hypocrisy" & liberal snowflakes, and yet... here we are, talking about this Republican snowflake, and her snowflake baby of a 17 year old. 🤡

[Anonymous]

This guy it's now 27??

Wow, Youngkin went DEEP into archives to dust this off -- must be getting desperate for slanderous content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

It really speaks volumes as to how coddled children are from conservative families.

I hope these conservative parents understand that every single one of their coddled children has looked at porn on the internet. Every. single. one.

That's not true, but even if it were it is a weak argument for saying public schools shouldn't bother to tell parents when they are assigning sexually explicit material. As understood by the many legislators, including Jennifer McClellan and Sam Rasoul, who supported the bill that McAuliffe vetoed.

+1
Plenty of Democrats agree with at least notifying parents when assignments will contain sexually explicit material. Seems the hyper-partisan left - which apparently includes McAuliffe - refuses to admit this fact. Anything to win, I guess.

Let’s put those vetos into context:

“In his first veto message, McAuliffe said ‘this legislation lacks flexibility and would require the label of ‘sexually explicit’ to apply to an artistic work based on a single scene, without further context.’ In his second veto message, he said the Virginia Board of Education had ‘determined that existing state policy regarding sensitive or controversial instructional material is sufficient and that additional action would be unnecessarily burdensome on the instructional process.’”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/27/glenn-youngkins-viral-child-ad-is-missing-important-context/

So basically, he vetoed the first one because it was too restrictive, and then vetoed the second one because VDOE had already determined that existing regulations provided for the kind of notice addressed in the bill.

I'll take a line from the hypocrite who posted before you "anything to win, I guess...".
Youngkin seems desperate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:etc. He has ties to and was promoted in the beginning by a very extreme right wing, racist group in Loudoun.

I'm in Loudoun, and am not aware of any very extreme right wing, racist groups here.

+1000

+2000
The PP who wrote that is a complete liar. Notice, there are never any links when outrageous claims like that are made.

Like this gem from a few months ago?

https://www.loudountimes.com/news/kkk-group-leaves-fliers-in-ashburn-leesburg-second-such-incident-in-2021/article_281e3b3e-d51e-11eb-afec-77b4c713d6a6.html

Yuck, awful. And absolutely not tied to Youngkin. Also, this is exactly what DCUM's finest would call a "false flag" operation. See how much you've taught us?

[Anonymous]

That’s not what “false flag” means…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

Post the passages in question from Beloved here. Go ahead.

Still waiting. Not one of you dopes has the nerve to do so. Because you all KNOW how graphic it is.

A book can be graphic and still have important literary value. Nobody is denying the content, it’s a debate over whether a kid taking college-level classes should be able to handle that content given to literary significance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s not what “false flag” means…

There’s no arguing with stupid. Don’t waste your time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:etc. He has ties to and was promoted in the beginning by a very extreme right wing, racist group in Loudoun.

I'm in Loudoun, and am not aware of any very extreme right wing, racist groups here.

+1000

You have your head in the sand. You are unaware of the KKK flyers that have been distributed around neighborhoods for years? Scott Mineo of PACT and David Gordon of the Virginia Project are active with these candidates. Go to facebook and hunt for Vito Malara's posts. That is the fake name Mineo uses. David Gordon used a fake name of Alexa Rose or something like that. Pattie Menders and Mineo sued LCPS over CRT. Take a look at these people and their organizations.

DP. I have no idea who these people are, nor am I interested in finding out. Suffice it to say, Glenn Youngkin has *nothing* to do with any extremist and/or racist groups, so you can stop the ridiculous lies. You just sound like a crazy imbecile.

Scott Mineo is one of the 5 people suing Loudoun County Public Schools over the district’s Student Equity Ambassador Program and the Bias Incident Reporting System. Another one of those 5 people is starring in the Youngkin ad this thread is about.

https://loudounnow.com/2021/08/16/a-case-for-discrimination-against-white-lcps-students-is-dismissed/

Good for them. Especially the absurd "Bias Incident Reporting System." You may be interested in living in Oceania, but rational and sane people are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

Post the passages in question from Beloved here. Go ahead.

Still waiting. Not one of you dopes has the nerve to do so. Because you all KNOW how graphic it is.

A book can be graphic and still have important literary value. Nobody is denying the content, it’s a debate over whether a kid taking college-level classes should be able to handle that content given to literary significance.

What kind of "graphic" are we talking about? -np

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I had told my parents that a Pulitzer price winning author’s book scared me when I was 17, they would have thought I was insane. WTF?

Post the passages in question from Beloved here. Go ahead.

Still waiting. Not one of you dopes has the nerve to do so. Because you all KNOW how graphic it is.

A book can be graphic and still have important literary value. Nobody is denying the content, it’s a debate over whether a kid taking college-level classes should be able to handle that content given to literary significance.

What kind of "graphic" are we talking about? -np

Go ahead and look it up. You know how to use google, right?