My policies are simple: Government needs to leave us alone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welcome to the American Taliban. It’s like we sent our military to Afghanistan and all we got was a roadmap to running a contemporary fundamentalist religious dictatorship.

Taliban is the opposite of ‘government needs to leave us alone’. JFC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then why is government interfering with how parents parent their trans child?

Parent away. Most people have no problem with you providing gender affirmation medical care for your own kid. They want you to keep your ideas out of the classroom where it can indoctrinate other people's kids.

Um, except for the growing list of states with Republican governors who are authorizing citizens to contact child protective services and report parents who are doing just that. Youngkin‘s latest policy also states that even if parents authorize their children to use a different name or gender than the one they were given at birth, teachers and administrators can ignore that if it goes against their values. So let’s not pretend that this is about parents having the freedom to do whatever they want with their children. It’s about the right kind of parents making the right kind of choices.

At work we should have protections against compelled speech. Teachers may choose to use your child's preferred pronouns, but they should not be forced to do so under the threat of losing their jobs. There must be a polite way for them to teach that doesn’t require them to participate in the child's gender journey.

My job can have standards for customer service and communication standards, but they can't force particular speech. If my client goes off on a crazy rant about some political topic, I don't have to affirm his opinion or agree with him. I can change the subject and bring the conversation back to the business at hand and what I am actually being paid to do.

There should be space for teachers to focus on teaching their subject and ignore your kid's gender issues completely.

Ok, just so I’m clear—a teacher refusing to use a child’s parent-approved pronouns is ok because we should protect them from compelled speech. But a teacher choosing to respect a student’s chosen pronouns without parental consent isn’t ok because that’s the teacher imposing their own values ahead of the will of the parent. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then why is government interfering with how parents parent their trans child?

Parent away. Most people have no problem with you providing gender affirmation medical care for your own kid. They want you to keep your ideas out of the classroom where it can indoctrinate other people's kids.

Um, except for the growing list of states with Republican governors who are authorizing citizens to contact child protective services and report parents who are doing just that. Youngkin‘s latest policy also states that even if parents authorize their children to use a different name or gender than the one they were given at birth, teachers and administrators can ignore that if it goes against their values. So let’s not pretend that this is about parents having the freedom to do whatever they want with their children. It’s about the right kind of parents making the right kind of choices.

At work we should have protections against compelled speech. Teachers may choose to use your child's preferred pronouns, but they should not be forced to do so under the threat of losing their jobs. There must be a polite way for them to teach that doesn’t require them to participate in the child's gender journey.

My job can have standards for customer service and communication standards, but they can't force particular speech. If my client goes off on a crazy rant about some political topic, I don't have to affirm his opinion or agree with him. I can change the subject and bring the conversation back to the business at hand and what I am actually being paid to do.

There should be space for teachers to focus on teaching their subject and ignore your kid's gender issues completely.

Ok, just so I’m clear—a teacher refusing to use a child’s parent-approved pronouns is ok because we should protect them from compelled speech. But a teacher choosing to respect a student’s chosen pronouns without parental consent isn’t ok because that’s the teacher imposing their own values ahead of the will of the parent. Got it.

I have no problem with teachers choosing to honor the student's chosen pronouns. Have at it, but don't enact school policies that purposefully keep parents in the dark about major mental health issues related to their own kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" Every pre-born child is a human being deserving of protection as the most vulnerable members of our society. "


IF that is the case, let’s take a baby born with downs (Someone who is one of our most vulnerable) they receive:

Education from birth at least 21
a jobs program
They receive Medicaid/Medicare
Food Stamps
Gun rights
Voting rights
HOV status

All that to every fetus?

Food and health care to all pregnant women
Education free from birth- age 21
Voting rights for children
HOV status

Not what the guy wants for sure. He is clueless

+1 put your money where your mouth is, or stfu about "pre-born babies deserving right to life", as if a baby doesn't need food, shelter, clothing and medical care to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then why is government interfering with how parents parent their trans child?

Parent away. Most people have no problem with you providing gender affirmation medical care for your own kid. They want you to keep your ideas out of the classroom where it can indoctrinate other people's kids.

Um, except for the growing list of states with Republican governors who are authorizing citizens to contact child protective services and report parents who are doing just that. Youngkin‘s latest policy also states that even if parents authorize their children to use a different name or gender than the one they were given at birth, teachers and administrators can ignore that if it goes against their values. So let’s not pretend that this is about parents having the freedom to do whatever they want with their children. It’s about the right kind of parents making the right kind of choices.

At work we should have protections against compelled speech. Teachers may choose to use your child's preferred pronouns, but they should not be forced to do so under the threat of losing their jobs. There must be a polite way for them to teach that doesn’t require them to participate in the child's gender journey.

My job can have standards for customer service and communication standards, but they can't force particular speech. If my client goes off on a crazy rant about some political topic, I don't have to affirm his opinion or agree with him. I can change the subject and bring the conversation back to the business at hand and what I am actually being paid to do.

There should be space for teachers to focus on teaching their subject and ignore your kid's gender issues completely. [/quote

Ok, just so I’m clear—a teacher refusing to use a child’s parent-approved pronouns is ok because we should protect them from compelled speech. But a teacher choosing to respect a student’s chosen pronouns without parental consent isn’t ok because that’s the teacher imposing their own values ahead of the will of the parent. Got it.

I have no problem with teachers choosing to honor the student's chosen pronouns. Have at it, but don't enact school policies that purposefully keep parents in the dark about major mental health issues related to their own kid.

This!!!
Reminded of a local student that was reported to a guidance counselor, who saw them and then did not alert parents that there was a concern. Student committed suicide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welcome to the American Taliban. It’s like we sent our military to Afghanistan and all we got was a roadmap to running a contemporary fundamentalist religious dictatorship.

Taliban is the opposite of ‘government needs to leave us alone’. JFC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's who is running for VA's 10th District.

"Government needs to stay out of our businesses, out of our homes, out of our churches, away from our children and away from our guns. We are the most powerful country in the world and the American spirit allowed us to invent the lightbulb which lit the way for the world; the automobile which takes the world to work each day...."

"The government does not give us rights as parents; they are our natural rights given to us by God and as such, cannot be removed. "

" Every pre-born child is a human being deserving of protection as the most vulnerable members of our society. "



Thought I'd go and look as we were recently redistricted. Jennifer Wexton has been doing a pretty good job as far as I can tell, thought I'd see what she's up against. OMG. OK, I was expecting a Republican candidate to be somewhat conservative, but he is off-the-charts.

The website is nuts.

Who are you even talking about? Link??

Too lazy or too dumb to figure out who is running in the 10th district of VA against Wexton? It pretty much spells it out in the OP. You can find the link in about a nanosecond, sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's who is running for VA's 10th District.

"Government needs to stay out of our businesses, out of our homes, out of our churches, away from our children and away from our guns. We are the most powerful country in the world and the American spirit allowed us to invent the lightbulb which lit the way for the world; the automobile which takes the world to work each day...."

"The government does not give us rights as parents; they are our natural rights given to us by God and as such, cannot be removed. "

" Every pre-born child is a human being deserving of protection as the most vulnerable members of our society. "



Thought I'd go and look as we were recently redistricted. Jennifer Wexton has been doing a pretty good job as far as I can tell, thought I'd see what she's up against. OMG. OK, I was expecting a Republican candidate to be somewhat conservative, but he is off-the-charts.

The website is nuts.

Which part is "off the charts" nuts?

We must unleash the power of the American spirit, allowing industry to innovate and small businesses to thrive.

Okay, cool, I'm on board so far.

Government needs to stay out of the way and let America be America.

Kind of a meaningless platitude, but I'll be generous and let it slide.

Inflation: Inflation is theft against the American people. The policies of the current administration have led to the highest inflation rates since 1982. Families are spending more at the pump and in grocery stores with no end in sight and no plan for relief. Prices for goods and services are crushing small businesses and families already struggling through the pandemic.

Okay, this is pretty bonkers. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and inflation in every single OECD country is running hotter than it is in the US, so to link it to Biden's policies is sloppy reasoning at best and disingenuous at worst. And no plan for relief? Since he doesn't provide any details, we're left to assume that he either supports price controls (awful idea) or subsidies (which will make shortages and inflation worse).

Dignity of work: We must get America back to work. We must encourage Americans to return to work and to do so uninhibited by arbitrary and unconstitutional mandates.

Alright, we're really off the rails here. Instead of ideas that would actually materially improve the labor market (getting rid of absurd licensing requirements, lifting zoning requirements that arbitrarily raise the cost of both housing and commercial space, etc), he seems to be under the impression that the labor market is suffering because of vaccine mandates???

Cutting taxes: Cutting taxes must go synonymously with cutting frivolous spending. We must work tirelessly to stem the flood of out-of-control spending before it’s too late.

Meaningless drivel. Why must we cut taxes? Why must it go synonymously with cutting frivolous spending? Is he laboring under the impression that tax cuts can be financed by buying fewer overpriced toilet seats for the Pentagon (what a laughable concept!)? And before it is too late for what?

Balancing the budget: Congress’ main job is to balance the budget, but it has failed to do so in the last 15 years. We cannot prosper as a nation if our government cannot work within its means the same way American families live within their means. I spent two years balancing the Navy’s $140 Billion budget and understand how each line item on the budget affects another, but this can be solved when determined members of Congress do their jobs.

This is insane. Since when is Congress' main job to balance the budget? In any event, it's desirable to run a deficit during downturns, and when the cost of servicing debt is lower than the rate of economic growth (as it has been for nearly all of the past 75 years), it carries very little fiscal cost. And it is completely bonkers to compare government finances with household finances. Maybe when households can issue their own currency and fund their operations by issuing debt, then we can start to compare them, but until then, this is just a bizarre talking point that gets lapped up by right-wing ideologues who lack critical thinking skills.

This website is off-the-charts nuts.

Not only is the website off-the-charts nuts, this part (I spent two years balancing the Navy’s $140 Billion budget and understand how each line item on the budget affects another, ) is not even true. For all the Mom, Flags, and Apple pie drivel being spouted, he's stratching the truth on huge chunks of his background. Or just lying for some of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Government needs to leave us alone.....except if we have a uterus! Then they can dictate what we can and cannot do with our bodies.

Do what you want with your body. Just don't harm someone else's body. Abortion kills a human being. Abortions harm women who have them.

You don't have top be Christian to think murder is wrong.

[Anonymous]

He's getting my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welcome to the American Taliban. It’s like we sent our military to Afghanistan and all we got was a roadmap to running a contemporary fundamentalist religious dictatorship.

Enough with the "Taliban" comparisons. It's old, unoriginal and makes you look silly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welcome to the American Taliban. It’s like we sent our military to Afghanistan and all we got was a roadmap to running a contemporary fundamentalist religious dictatorship.

This is ridiculous. Get out of your Washington DC Metro area bubble and educate yourself. And by the way, how is anyone else's perceived hatred different from the hatred you spout? Your a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Government needs to leave us alone.....except if we have a uterus! Then they can dictate what we can and cannot do with our bodies.

Do what you want with your body. Just don't harm someone else's body. Abortion kills a human being. Abortions harm women who have them.

You don't have top be Christian to think murder is wrong.

You have to be a nutjob to equate abortion with murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He's getting my vote.

Nice to know you lack the ability to think and falling for empty rhetoric that appeals to your right wing core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Government needs to leave us alone.....except if we have a uterus! Then they can dictate what we can and cannot do with our bodies.

Do what you want with your body. Just don't harm someone else's body. Abortion kills a human being. Abortions harm women who have them.

You don't have top be Christian to think murder is wrong.

You have to be a nutjob to equate abortion with murder.

That's what the word means. Induced expulsion of a human fetus. Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.

Sorry the facts and truth don't support your view.