Freedom

submitted by TurtureTucker from youtube.com

all 21 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]SMCAB 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Socks is such an asshole.

[–]Zapped 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

He sounds a little like Obama's style and cadence. Much like a Southern preacher. He even has a bit of the Southern drawl incorporated.

He speaks of women's reproductive rights and children's right to read anything. This is the debate, isn't it? The "women's rights" he speaks of is really about when you believe life begins, not contraception. And reading materials in schools is about parent's rights, not children's rights.

[–]TurtureTucker[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Whatever your preferences, young voters and women who normally did not vote are now very concerned for their rights in many states. SCOTUS and the GOP are working for a minority (and Big Corp) who promote extreme positions that 91% of the US do not want. (Previous surveys have shown that 91% do not agree with SCOTUS's overturn of RvW.)

Regarding books in schools, I'd argue they aren't so dangerous, and as you say, parents can work with their children on what they read. Politicizing education has been one of the GOP efforts in the past 40 years to ruin the educational options for the 99%. One would think that anyone who is pro-life will want the best educational system in the world, rather than one of the worst.

[–]Zapped 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

When presented with poll numbers, I always like to know the exact wording of the question and anything said by the pollster leading up to that question.

Is it ok for any books to be placed in schools? And most people want the best education for their (and others') children. Like most politics, it comes down to how that should be achieved.

[–]TurtureTucker[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Is it ok for any books to be placed in schools?

It's a good question, to which I think the general answer is to leave library decisions up to the well-educated school librarian, and teaching up to a well-educated teacher. This is not a form of authoritarianism, but a way of expecting these poorly paid people to get on with their jobs. The banning of books has always been a politicized move, by those who want to manipulate the schools. Many of these people are pushed by their churches or political interests. Parents can discuss books with their kids. Banning books also draws attention to them, as if they are dangerous. Kids love that and will easily get access to these banned books, especially because most resources are online. (They see much worse online.) The history of banned books is informative of the ridiculous religious and political double standards for banning books. We're discussing this now only because banning books has become a political motivation by the GOP. To explicitly answer your question: I think that almost any book can be in a school, unless it promotes torture or unjustified murder (eg. to allow for the problem of 'justified warfare').

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

leave library decisions up to the well-educated school librarian,

You only say that because in this case your political agenda lines up with the corrupt administration. If they had white supremecist literature you would be throwing a fit. You have no integrity.

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

leave library decisions up to the well-educated school librarian

Doesn't the librarian work for the parents?

Banning books also draws attention to them, as if they are dangerous. Kids love that and will easily get access to these banned books, especially because most resources are online.

Drugs?

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Zapped 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Banning drugs, you doofus, not banning books about drugs. I was pointing out your poor example of kids easily getting questionable reading material outside school.

    Librarian works for the state, paid by the county, if in a public school.

    Who does the state represent? Why have public schools if not for the needs or desires of the parents to have their children taught? You just took the parents out of the equation about children.

    [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    He sounds a little like Obama's style and cadence.

    He's probably coached by the same people.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    real freedom is investing in public schools

    okay boomer

    [–]TortureTucker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    (Boomers aren't investing in public schools.)

    [–]Feldheld 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    Slavery = freedom.

    • Your average Dem candidate.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Feldheld 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      Slavery is the feds forcing every state under one law.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      A country that's not united isn't a country. It's a mess.

      [–]Feldheld 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Freedom is messy, in the eyes of control freak narcissists.

      [–]Yin 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      Cringe.

      [–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Mm

      [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      The babie's right to live trumps the mother's right to rid herself of the inconvenience of child birth.

      It's annoying how the absolute irony of a leftist claiming child sexual grooming is a free speech issue when they are the party of censorship, blacklisting, and screamers is somehow lost on all those morons.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      And the freedom to create or obtain arbitrary medical substances trumps "the babie's right to live".

      [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      That's a fucked up stance to make. How can you justify that?

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Can't I just justify it by the opportunity cost? Haven't we learned yet that drug wars really don't work very well and result it an underground distribution network worse than the original street dealers?