Contradictions

I know it's not a particularly original thought, mostly just made it to share somewhere.

They are in fact very liberal... with stealing, oppression, lying, and virtue signaling. Much like how some farmers are very liberal with all the pig shit they slop onto their crops.

There are no more "liberals" in the old fashioned (1960s) sense of the word. For some reason, we still use that word to refer to Leftists. Liberals were all about real tolerance and acceptance of differing viewpoints, as well as wanting the government to leave them the Hell alone- obviously ideas that are completely antithetical to the doctrines of today's "Libs." All the real liberals became independents or conservatives a long time ago. The people known as "Libs" (Libtards) today are mostly Democrats, and almost all of them are Marxists. Also a large portion of them happen to be douchebags & F**ktards.

Well said.

Are you somehow under the impression that both can't be true?

California, of all places, voted to ban same-sex marriage in 2008. Court overturned that in 2015, but it's still on the books.

I personally have absolutely no problem with it. I'm of the belief that the right needs to stay out of people's bedrooms, but likewise the left needs to take it back IN the bedroom.

There should be SOME laws restricting who you can have sex with, but I know the far left wants to normalize pedophilia and incest, and the far right wants to normalize incest.

As for how you can dress, the closest thing to laws I'm aware of in that regard is "cultural appropriation" culture, not to mention the meltdowns over maga hats and other Trump merch.

Do you think the left isn't banning and burning books?

Also, realizing you mistyped your last point, the SCOTUS didn't make abortion illegal, they only removed an unconstitutional law that protected abortion at a federal level, which is their job. They gave control of abortion laws back to state level (aka small government), where it's supposed to be.

Can you name any books banned by Democrats or liberals within the last 8 years?

Like off the top of my head, I can name 1. The Bible. But that was using the laws put in place by conservatives.

To Kill a Mockingbird.
Of Mice and Men.

They were banned? Are you sure?

You might want to check that out.

Because, if you are referring to the school district in Berkley, California, the books are still available in the library for any student to check out. And it is still being taught, in small groups by teachers that have gone through specific sensitivity training.

They were at least briefly banned, and some attempts are still being made.

And the attempts are what really matter, just as to you, the attempts to ban books that graphically depict and describe lgbt sexual acts to primary school children are what matter.

It's weird that you think a book that's been banned automatically means it's somehow "grooming"! children.

What in your life has lead you to believe such things? Especially since you likely haven't read the books.

Like take The Blue Eye by Toni Morrison. That has rape and incest in it, and it's not a good thing in the story. Why would you think a book the shows the trauma and abuse of those things would groom children?

I ask again why you want children to be exposed to something like that, even in a bad sense. Why not let them keep their childhood until such time as they are mature enough to handle things like that? Why get them interested in sexual content early unless you are a groomer?

I do need to correct myself- it's The Bluest Eye not the Blue Eye.

But The Bluest Eye is a book for highschoolers. It's not being read to 7 year olds by the teacher at story time. High Schoolers should be talking about those subjects. While they are still children, they are about to be adults. They need to know about these topics, talk about them in a safe environment to help them process what it means. And, hopefully, prompt those who have suffered that trauma to seek help.

And, again, it's weird that conservatives go straight to grooming. Why would you think that a book about the trauma of rape and incest would "get them interested in it"?

It's weird.

So you agree at least that it shouldn't be accessible to primary school children, as it has been.

Even in high school though, nothing sexually explicit, either by word or by art, should be available to children under the age of consent.

Or under the age of 25 for women, since the left seems to think women are incapable of making their own informed decisions until then... unless it's a decision to transition of course.

When laws protect corporations and business over the people they hurt, and every state can make their own law without following a main law, people get hurt, a sense of lawlessness rules corruption and a confederacy takes hold.

Corporations like big pharma and their massive profit from highly dubious plandemic vaccines?

Naturally you seem to be under the impression those are all right wing laws.

And it's actually when federal laws overrule state's rights that you get "confederacy".

But I get it, you prefer Big Brother authoritarianism over freedom.

I support a union government governed by one law that is the same for one land, not a confederacy where every state can rule its own law without the oversight of a federal government.

Really? And what if the federal law is the bad one, while the state level laws are preferable?

For example, in the late 19th century, it was (I believe) federal law in the US that women couldn't vote, and Wyoming was the first state to give women that right, in 1869 (over 50 years before the 19th amendment), which was only about 2 decades after all men were finally *allowed* to vote. (Different choice of words since men have never actually had the right to vote in the US, they've always had to meet some criteria, like being a wealthy landowner or signing up for the draft.)

That is why it's all mucked up. Just like native Americans weren't human till the late 1800s it would be nice to have a set law that didn't change but new things happen and law sometimes need to change but not for the worse.

You would have to study law in order to understand the complexity of it all. Let's say you have a doctor tell you you need a difibulator Device or your heart will stop beating... You are basically out of options and at the mercy of the doctors advice, you trust your doctor, but what you didn't realize was that at the time your doctor chose what company that medical device would be, when you could have chosen a different company. Down the road your device has a recall but the doctor says we can't remove the device but we can install another device, or we have to remove the device which is very risky. In this situation the doctor is not at fault for prescribing a medical device that becomes defective in the future, so if you die due to a defective medical device in certain states your family cand win a lawsuit because it wasn't the doctors fault and going after the pharmaceutical company that sells the device will turn it around to blaming the doctor, then a higher court must decide what the state law rules are all while ignoring federal laws regarding medical devices and prescriptions. The only way to get a state to follow a federal law is to take a case all the way to the supreme court where it won't get heard and tossed out because they pick and choose what case to hear.