Michael Hardner

Ok but why allow access to mass killing machines at such a time? Is a sick society able to diagnose itself?

1. 2. That sounds accurate. Maybe espousing theories of superiority based on ethnic/gender/creed and favouring systematic oppression of freedoms based on such theories ?

As per my comment, "not". The OP though seems to be challenged by the events of late.

1. I'm conservative so I support freedom, not government shutting people down and preventing marriage because they don't like them. The child molestation stuff is always trumped up. 2. Nevertheless I provided you with the link. Thatcher and Nixon also cared about climate change and the environment respectively. Enjoy your day.

1. Ok, problems with the jurisdiction but ok. 2. Start at 3:50. The man Elizabeth May called the greenest PM speaks. https://youtu.be/q_QpFQ1LGMs?si=5fjb9Dmct8bvdVJF

Maybe not but this stuff still happens. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/jacksonville-gunman-used-rifle-swastikas-214756582.html

1. What would you change about L&G rights ? Seems like there's no more to be done there ? 2. Also climate change and the ozone layer.

I already asked what specifically was objectionable. The one clear answer I had indicated that the themes could lead students to "raise questions". I disagree but even if I agree it's far from p*rn and I can't take any such arguments seriously. It's a non-starter.

1. 2. Yeah, I think it's allegorical. And meant to introduce the idea of self-acceptance and other-acceptance. Of course it's not just a story but it's not porn either. 3. No. Child beauty contests and makeup for kids are much closer but Republicans never mention those. You gave me your perspective, which is what I asked.

Lesbian Gay and Queer too ? And Climate ? Well Conservatives were all about climate in the 1980s so you kind of lost me there. I never understood when people include climate in wokism.

Well what else then ?

So, specifically wokeness is about support for transgenderism ? Or more than that ?

I asked you if the Democrats should be abolished and you said "without even a discussion"

1. 2. Right but only an adult would see that in the book - it's all allegory. 3. That book tells the kids to accept themselves for however they feel, which is letting them be themselves.

No. Liberals want economic and personal freedom, small 'l', not the abolishment of private property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

1. Your post is extremely articulate, however I have to think when the problems are this deep then the issue is deeper than one side. If the Republicans are indeed so defective why aren't the Democrats trouncing them in every election ? How is the US at such a stalemate in all of this ? I am not discounting your perspective on the Republican party at all, but I think the problem may be with the public - which is not the same as saying the problem is with the people.

1. The parents' 2. Yes I don't see anything concerning in there, as a parent. 3. There's no 'chastising' but it seems difficult to pick out anything that's problematic. The overall theme might be objectionable to parents but then that is a different question, and one can't seriously compare this to d**p throat as one poster here did. It seems to me that parents are rejecting values, albeit liberal values, such as acceptance of diversity, tolerance and such. Well, ok, but then they should say that ...

Ok so you wouldn't support it if Ontario schools mandated Sex Ed and parents took their kids out in a mass strike, I suppose. Seems off-brand but ok. Again, I am only asking if people here think there's something wrong in the book not whether the teacher should have read it or whether they should have been fired. Thanks.

It's not just Republicans who vote for Trump.

1. Ok sorry. 2. Yes obviously. 3. Sorry... this sounds like the usual LIBERAL response to parents' rights types but ok.

1. So... don't ask questions ? I'm not challenging whether there's a legal leg to stand on for the teacher I'm asking people here what is actually wrong with the content.

What specifically in that book is so objectionable ? You are making general comments about it but can you pick out a sentence or page even ? It seems to be about accepting diversity to me. There's no science in it, and it's ridiculous to compare to DT. If you can't make your point without calling me a name there may be problems with your argument that you're compensating for.

Well didn't you just say that the School Board will be firing people for using the 'wrong' bathroom soon ? Isn't this about making the Board of Ed reflect the politics of the government, whether you agree with them or not ?

The Manifesto is not 'liberal'. It doesn't reflect Consumer Culture but a Europe that was in shock from the industrial revolution. I'm not sure where you got that piece but it seems to just be an attempt to make centre-leftish parties appear to be close to Communism. It's a non-starter for me, sorry. Every bit as rabble-rousing and emotional as the original tract. Edited to add: People are already trying to say that the problem is with the 'other' side or that certain parties should be banned etc. Maybe that's a valid opinion, I don't know, but it's not helpful to the discussion here bc there's nothing to add. While those opinions aren't exactly nonsense, I don't see the point in adding to those branches of the discussion here.