Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry but if the R’s push through a complete ban it won’t last long at all.
I’m voting R this year and it feels weird. The local Dem officials think they can govern incompetently with 0 impunity
You’re voting R for state legislature to spite local Ds?
And willing to throw away women’s rights to do so?
This whole “you have to vote for all Ds or else you are voting to throw away women’s rights” argument is tiresome. Here’s a thought, maybe Ds should take a look in the mirror and realize their stances on crime and schools aren’t popular and adjust accordingly, instead of relying on guilting voters into supporting them based solely on the abortion issue.
That’s your big problem: Democrats’ “stances on crime and school” are PLENTY popular. And the results of elections around the country since Dobbs shows emphatically that abortion is the overriding concern for voters.
Moreover, the fear-based crime messaging only works on uneducated voters. Voters here roll their eyes at the suggestion that there’s a crime problem in the mean streets of Warrenton or Culpeper or Lorton or wherever.
Keep telling yourself that the way Dems are handling crime is popular. Loudoun County parents love the direction their schools have taken too. My town doesn’t have a crime problem, and I don’t want the streets of my town/county to become like DC or even MoCo, so I’m fine with keeping the status quo at our local level with Rs. But keep pushing the abortion issue as the single issue that voters should base their decision on.
-signed an educated voter with a law degree
Thanks, I will. Because it’s the winning issue.
You go on believing phantom menaces if you need to.
My house/ex’s household have already produced 8 votes for Dems in Loudoun. That is me, my two college age children who came home to vote early, my girlfriend, my ex and her boyfriend and his two adult children.
The Republican messaging here is a complete loser.
Crime isn’t a problem, we know full well this is about abortion and Youngkin’s future political ambitions, and we intend to take back our public schools from the lunatics obsessed with marginalizing at-risk students and
banning books.
So it’s pretty important to you that books depicting graphic illustrations of boy to adult oral sex be made available to children in *school* libraries rather than accessible at Barnes & Noble or available to be checked out at the public library? Because that’s what we’re taking about here, right? That’s the “banned books” rhetoric …
Get as much porn into schools as possible because why have any expectation that books chosen for school libraries should be porn-free?
Yes, I'm 100% ok with that.
And your hyperbole about "porn" is ridiculous. You know that, you just argue everything in bad faith. We see you clearly.
Jesus. Talk about "seeing YOU clearly" - there is no hyperbole about porn. And no one is "banning" these books. They're all available at your local public library or book store, or Amazon. You'll always be able to do porn storytime with your kids, no worries. Making sure our public school libraries have appropriate reading material is not "banning" anything. But you know that. Thanks for showing - yet again - your true colors.
DP
It’s not porn. No matter how many times you push those Republican lies.
It certainly is. No matter how many times you Democrats continue to gaslight us. Why weren't parents allowed to read aloud from these books in school board meetings? Why are the graphically sexual images in these books deleted from this site when they're posted? We'll wait while you spin something up.
No, it’s not porn. Stop being deliberately obtuse.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pornography
Pornography–"porn" or "porno" for short–is material that depicts nudity or sexual acts for the purpose of sexual stimulation. However, the presence of nudity or sexual acts in piece of media does not necessarily make that media pornographic if the purpose of that media form is something other than sexual stimulation
If you actually read the books you’d know they weren’t intended for sexual stimulation.
And what is appropriate for a high school student is different than what’s appropriate for a kindergartner. You can’t post the word beetch on DCUM. That’s not really a test of anything.
You have got to be kidding. By now, we've all seen the pictures depicting two girls having oral sex (with a dildo), the description of the vibrator, the phone/texting sex conversation, the description and recollection of a childhood sexual experience, etc. Good grief. You seem intent on gaslighting away the graphically sexual images in these books.
Talk about deliberately obtuse. No one takes you seriously at this point.
It takes a special sort of sheltered conservative fuddy-duddy not to understand that fiction can describe sex, or even depict sex, in ways that aren't sexual arousing or intended to be.
It takes a special sort of LWNJ twit to ASSume that anyone who disagrees with them must be a "conservative fuddy-duddy." It's also amusing that you think teens reading those books aren't sexually aroused by the explicit descriptions and graphics.
No, it's the assumption that any description or depiction of sex must be arousing that makes someone a conservative fuddy-duddy. It suggests a basic misunderstanding of how storytelling works, for the sake of censoring texts that promote sexual attitudes you disapprove of.
Let's take some examples from a text that you should be quite familiar with - the Bible!
Do you find it arousing to read bible verses about man and woman becoming one flesh?
Or about seducing and lying with a virgin?
Or about lying with a woman and then bathing after a "seminal emission"?
Or about lusting after paramours hung like horses?
Or about beholding the nakedness of relatives?
Or about the "perversion" of having intercourse with an animal?
Or about a girl "playing the harlot" in her father's house?
No? Then you understand the difference between descriptions of sexual activity that don't have the purpose or effect of titillating, and pornography that does. You just don't like letting teens access coming of age stories about queer people.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
