And then they lower the age that kids can get married to 14/15 (pedos!), and change labor laws so pre-teens can work in dangerous jobs or serve alcohol.
If they want to protect "children", we need Xtra restrictive gun laws, and child abuse laws. Who protects children from abuse at home?
Not conservatives, they are the ones behind all this.
It is absolutely always one of those two, and they try this shit every session. Better solution? Kick any politician who signs off on these bills out of office and make it crystal clear that they've been booted because they're anti-speech and anti-privacy.
This is quite scary. I don’t know if it being on the calendar means they’re guaranteed to vote on it but the text of the bill would completely fuck the Fediverse. You literally need paid personnel to comply with these regulations.
They should raid people’s homes in foreign countries, we fucked those muslims in afganastan over what they did to us we can do it again if needed. We could also just block their service, would be even easier if not less fun than kicking their asses with armed troops.
Somehow it never crossed their minds to stop selling firearms to teens, but vendor Internet in the name of protecting kids? Sign us up. Fuck that.
Pretty much any bill, worldwide, that includes the phrase “project kids” is always about pushing censorship, government surveillance and other forms of oppression on everyone. And guess what: zero actual benefit to kids.
Not even close, but try again. They just look the same when you're so far left you need to squint to see anyone to the right of you. There is a massive gap between "neoliberals" as you call them, and the modern conservative electorate. Those "neoliberals" also represent the majority of voters on the left, hence the guy who is president being one of them. Stay mad though.
Because you can’t argue that. Any other ground reason for policy can be challenged or counterargued or relies on values which are arguable.
No one is going to plainly argue “ok but how about we do not protect children?”. And if someone tries a different angle such as “this law is not really going to protect anyone and will bring a lot of problems for children and adults alike” it will be easily dismissed as “you insidious snake, why do you want to hurt children?! Don’t sabotage child protection!”. Which autokills conversation.
Jack O'Neil's son would still be alive today if he didn't get a hold of his father's gun. But then we wouldn't have Stargate. It's sort of a toss up to me.
Why take a principled stand against those who are pushing this when you can just say “government” and leave everyone thinking this is a bipartisan problem?
Add comment