Greyparrot

So where's Fanchick? We need an expert sherpa here.

These are Tucker's words from the shadows:

"Good evening. One of the first things you realize when you step outside the noise for a few days is how many genuinely nice people there are in this country, kind and decent people who really care about what's true, and a bunch of hilarious people, also a lot of those. It's got to be the majority of the population, even now. So that's heartening. The other thing you notice when you take a little time off is how unbelievably stupid most of the debates you see on television are. They're completely irrelevant. They mean nothing. In five years we won't even remember that we had them. Trust me as someone who's participated. And yet at the same time, and this is the amazing thing, the undeniably big topics, the ones that will define our future, get virtually no discussion at all: war, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, corporate power, natural resources. When was the last time you heard a legitimate debate about any of those issues? It's been a long time. Debates like that are not permitted in American media. Both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them, and they actively collude to shut down any conversation about it. Suddenly the United States looks very much like a one-party state. That's a depressing realization, but it's not permanent. Our current orthodoxies won't last. They're brain dead. Nobody actually believes them. Hardly anyone's life is improved by them. This moment is too inherently ridiculous to continue, and so it won't. The people in charge know this. That's why they're hysterical and aggressive. They're afraid. They've given up persuasion. They're resorting to force. But it won't work. When honest people say what's true calmly and without embarrassment, they become powerful. At the same time, the liars who've been trying to silence them shrink, and they become weaker. That's the iron law of the universe: true things prevail. Where can you still find Americans saying true things? There aren't many places left, but there are some, and that's enough. As long as you can hear the words, there is hope. See you soon."

Chilling.

I like your rainbow hair.

Can anyone fill me in on the MSNBC take on this?

Pretty sure most government agencies are immune to liability tort actions. The worst that usually happens is paid suspension while the system does a 5 year termination process funded by the taxpayers.

Price v. United States (1995) set the standard.

I'm guessing some political corporate news infotainment propaganda outlet was convincing you this wasn't the case?

He wasted a ton of that BBB bill on corporate welfare as well. Bernie Sanders would never have allowed that status quo.

People who voted for Biden over Sanders deserve the world they sold out to.

Literally anything that could be regarded as sexual instruction, yes. But that's been an academic policy for many schools before it was ever considered a State law. Where was the multi- million dollar corporate media ad campaign to crush those policies? Or perhaps the simple explanation is a hit job. Politics as usual, no surprises.

I actually agree with you regarding Biden keeping the status quo, Unfortunately, it was the status quo of the Trump years. Plus new wars.

Neither did DeSantis apparently.

Maybe he meant for you to get a female husband as he may be a male wife.

Interesting. I had a working theory that Americans voted for Biden because they hated one man more than they loved their country, but I have been proven wrong time and again.

The simple fact is most people that voted Biden in really had no clue. The corporate oligarchy media censorship is real.

Fanchick go Brrrrr.

Were you aware of Biden's dementia?

Support MSNBC

Oh lord, more MSNBC sperg, thought we got the limit for today.

If a 6 year old asks where babies come from or what it means to be gay, parents can be assured the school won't allow the teacher to hand out penthouse magazines, and instead say "ask your parents" because it is now illegal discuss sex with prepubescent children.

What about autos for retired alcoholics? (AAAAAAARP)

Oooh Fanchick mad! Oh noes!

Maybe you can pimp him out so he has a purpose in life outside of cutting and pasting MSNBC and Wapo propaganda. Just charge a deep discount so the ladies feel they got a good deal.

Lol, they don't use that word on MSNBC.

I can only guess how small a man would be to be threatened by 140 pounds of anything. 

MSNBC Fanchick has no idea about anything women want or experience with all that nonsense talk.

Pretty sure there is a huge area between teenager and "past the prime"

(except for pedophiliacs, jus sayin)

That surely didn't stop people from defining it and spending millions of dollars to spread the strawman.

I guess you could say they asked for it?

Hate to break the news to you, but this has always been the case in every State. Not just Fla. Public Teachers have not had the luxury of free speech ever since the many Scotus rulings banning it in the 80-90's especially regarding the separation of church and state along with other various ideologies.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969): The Supreme Court ruled that students have a constitutional right to express their political views in school as long as it does not disrupt the educational process. However, the Court also held that school officials can regulate speech that would cause a substantial disruption.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) is probably the most impactful recent one tho.

Or it just might be the media is being paid by corporate interests to convince you to defend a strawman. An obvious strawman in this case.

Time to go. I feel safe knowing you have no ability to dox me with your little MSNBC take on the world.

That looks like a direct cut and paste from MSNBC

Thanks for the input Fanchick.

Most MSNBC Fanchicks have a problem with people especially women.

Sure, some cases may be baseless, but predatory educators do exist, and it is the schools duty and responsibility to provide an environment where parents can feel safe sending their children.

So if a 6 year old asks where babies come from or what it means to be gay, they can be assured the school won't allow the teacher to hand out penthouse magazines, and instead say "ask your parents" because it is now illegal discuss sex with prepubescent children.

Is it your contention that sexual orientation can only mean "gay?"

Because if it doesn't then the bill is a "don't say sexual orientation bill"

Is it also your contention that gay teachers cannot sexually groom children?

If so, what are some sources backing that claim?

An anti-Russian, anti war stance would be that it is not in the USA's interest to finance Ukraine's conquest of the Donbas region as a result of their 2014 Civil war.

Is it your contention that the Donbas is definitively Ukrainian territory?

What facts do you have to support this claim knowing that the vast majority of the civilians in the Donbas today are not only Russian speakers and ethnically Russian, but also Russian nationals as well?

And even if you somehow were in support of the 2014 ethnic cleansing of the Donbas, what do you think would be the ethical thing to do with those people as they are being forcefully displaced? Does it even matter if they are ethnically Russian to you, or does your hatred for Putin extend to all ethnic Russians no matter where they may live so that extermination would be a viable ethical option?

Grooming is teaching little kids to suppress urges to avoid the natural inhibitions toward stranger danger, specifically in regards to their bodies.

Grooming is the process by which an adult, or sometimes an older child or teenager, establishes a relationship with a child or young person with the intention of eventually sexually exploiting them.

The groomer may begin to introduce sexual content, such as suggestive comments or discussions about sexual topics, into their interactions with the child. They may also gradually escalate the level of physical contact they have with the child, from non-sexual touching to sexual touching and eventually sexual activity.

If you read it, the answer will be apparent to you.

The fact you used the word "gay" suggests you most likely heard someone else describe the bill to you.

Is it possible to be anti war and anti-Russian at the same time?

It seems to me that the military industrial complex has a financial interest to convince you that this statement can only be false in every case.

For example, teachers in the state I work with are registered in an FBI database with fingerprints and are screened yearly for infractions regarding children. The reason the schools do this is to promote a safe learning environment. Anti-bullying policies are also a part of this mission.

Any teacher that isn't 100 percent committed to this mission degrades the reputation of the school. Schools strive to be as ideologically neutral (or at the very least APPEAR that way) as possible for the sole purpose of this mission. When schools fail this mission, parents start taking it out on the public officials, and then the shit rolls downhill.

Sure they do. Ukraine is offering a job to anyone willing to help them take the Donbas.

America offers anyone a job to hop the fence and come pick fruit in California. 

What I meant to say is we don't instruct ALL boys under 18 how to be in the military. JROTC programs are always at the high school level and it is always an elective, and an underage student always requires parental consent.

We already have ADA legislation and anti-bullying programs to ensure inclusivity in prepubescent public education. We don't need to teach the kids complexities of sexuality that they cannot comprehend as a prerequisite to teach them to be accepting of different people.

And since grooming is a very real issue, there really is only one sensible policy to have if schools want to maintain an environment of safety.

You should watch it. It's a nonstop troll network.

Can you cite the part of the bill that says gay or even homosexual?

Guess it takes one to know one. Or so I heard on MSNBC.

Anyone not a MSNBC Fanchick probably appears to be a dummy.

That "joke" is probably the kind of joke told to Colbert Fanchicks

Radical left cultism is an acquired taste.

If you watch enough MSNBC, such thoughts come with little effort.

That definitely lines up with the reporting on MSNBC, Fanchick.

A big problem for CNN with Don Lemon is he acts independently. Corporate media doesn't look kindly at journalists they cannot control.

I can't easily find the clip I wanted to show you, but recently, Don was doing an interview and he said on air "stop talking in my ear because I need to say this"

So he got fired for saying something nice about Biden on CNN? That's not what MSNBC reported. 

HB is awesome, I am happy he is here to return some sanity to this site.

MSNBC doesn't discuss the elections of DA's

You have to speak Fanchick's MSNBC language.

Also, let me pick a woman with less than 1% primary support, that way I will look like a cool guy in comparison.

One weird stat is that more Democrats tuned in to watch Tucker than MSNBC.

This can only mean great things for MSNBC as they become the only propaganda outlet of relevance.

How do you know he drinks a lot?