Your video, What attracted Sigourney Weaver to the character of Ripley, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yes….so does the law. 45+ year old Republican men taking underaged girls you supervise to your home late at night to get them drunk for sex….unethical, immoral, and absolutely illegal. A man wearing a dress and makeup to do comedy, not only not criminal but who the fuck cares?
I can’t wait for the next step, making it illegal for women to wear pants. Those transvestite cross dressing women need to be put in their place. 🤦‍♂️

Not a good thing. A cowardly, self denial thing. The reason republicans are so terrified of transexuals is they are uncontrollably attracted to them but know their friends will ridicule and ostracize them if they are discovered. Joseph’s brothers were jealous of his feminine beauty, not afraid he would sexualize their children.

Both are wrong? Sure…one is a non sexual comedy show for children, the other attempted rape of a child using drugs….to you, equally bad and wrong because you are afraid of those sexy sexy trannies. 🤦‍♂️

In case you aren’t aware, the Bible has transvestites that are considered good people in positions of power, like Joseph…that technicolor dream coat was a bridal dress of the time, his appearance described in feminine terms, he was not just a transvestite, but a transsexual who’s sex was changed in the womb…by god. Lots of child rape too, so much that there’s even child rape BY CHILDREN OF ADULTS! Anything you imagine about drag shows is right there in the Bible, but not in drag shows. But do you want it banned? Of course not, because you don’t really care about anything you whine about.
Also, in case you aren’t aware, there are multiple popular television shows about drag shows on basic cable, so I assume all republicans cancelled their cable? Of course not, that would require some sacrifice to get your way, something your ilk can’t fathom. You only act when it hurts the others but not you.

Nice job ignoring the republicans pulling 100% of funding to libraries out of pure spite because information is just for liberals and most republicans today can’t read anyway. That’s why book banning didn’t even register to you. You find banning information you dislike normal and acceptable, just like you support spreading lies you enjoy. Snowflake, stay in your safe space and leave the outside to adults.

99% of drag shows are non sexual.
No real statistics show trans people molesting children at a higher level than average men. In fact I believe the sex assault rate from the trans community is almost certainly lower than the population, but the frequency of trans people being sexually assaulted is 4 times the average. They’re the victims, not perpetrators.

Churches, on the other hand, are factories for child mollestation. Hundreds to thousands of separate victims per parish, tens of thousands to millions of mollestations. There is no group more likely to be molesters and rapists of children than clergy….NONE.

But you don’t even consider pulling children from these mollestation cabals because you know you don’t care about children being molested, you care about labeling your political enemies child molesters and hide and ignore the majority that are your “team” despite the facts.

Wow, no protections! She's brave and attractive!

For once, Bob is right….CNN is losing viewers, now that it’s becoming another righty propaganda outlet under the new CEO Chris Licht to appease John Malone, a far right-leaning billionaire now on the board of Discovery who just purchased CNN, close friend of the Murdoch family, and key Warner Bros. Discovery board member who has made it well-known that he would like CNN to be more “centrist”—whatever that means, has taken a noticeable shift to the far right in recent months. Firing the most highly rated hosts, cancelling highly rated shows, simply because he didn’t like them personally and hated the fact checking of the right.
It’s reported that they only watch CNN through FOX news….so only the edited clips Fox shows with Fox commentary and editorializing.

Note, when Stelter was fired, Tucker Carlson and Daily Mail seemed to know about it a full day before even Stelter was told….because Malone couldn’t keep from bragging about it in celebration.

CNN is under attack from within by the destructive dishonest right, who is trying their utmost to kill it. Who in their right mind could believe they might attract righty viewers at the outlet they call “the Devil” “evil” “communist”..etc? No one. The changes were blatantly obviously intended to ruin and kill the network the right hates with a passion, not improve it.

That's a sick equivocation. Moreover, dont you realize, YOU are the groomer in this situation?

There's one side saying

"This is the person type you must be attracted to if you are like this. This is the only type you can be. Any thing other than the prescribed way of doing things and it's sick and you're a pervert."

Another side is saying
"Be who you want to be, do what you want to do. It's okay if you feel X way about Y."


Dont you get it, it's not adults trying to push kids to do anything. The kids are the ones saying it. Seriously, you think I'm trying to call kids by the wrong name intentionally? THEY come up to me and Chris will say "actually call me Christy" "Ohhhkay Christy, have a seat and dont come up to my desk like that."


The KIDS are the ones who seem to not give a fuck about who goes in what bathrooms, but there are people "directing" (grooming?) their behavior saying "you must go to this one if X condition is met"


What state was it they were even doing genital exams to make sure only boys went to the boys and girls went to girls. https://www.ohiohouse.gov/news/democrat/ohio-republicans-want-to-force-children-to-undergo-genital-exams-to-play-high-school-sports-110422


Which side here^ is saying "just let them play" and which side wants to actually ask a child to physically expose themselves because of their dogmatic religious ideas about sex and gender?


I am proud to be on the side NOT asking children to expose themselves. Who's in charge of the lawmaking body for that school in Ohio, Let me know and I'll register to vote with the other side.

Teacher here. It's made-up-nonsense. I don't give a shit what gender or sexual orientation a kid is and im CERTAINLY not going to try to convince anyone to change anything about themselves.

That said, I'm going to acknowledge that gay/trans people exist in authorship and literature as it arises. You can't read someone like Whitman (Leaves of Grass, arguably America's greatest poet) and not come across references to sexuality either implicit or explicit. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45472/i-sing-the-body-electric

It becomes relevant in passages like this:

5
This is the female form,
A divine nimbus exhales from it from head to foot,
It attracts with fierce undeniable attraction,
I am drawn by its breath as if I were no more than a helpless vapor, all falls aside but myself and it,
Books, art, religion, time, the visible and solid earth, and what was expected of heaven or fear’d of hell, are now consumed,
Mad filaments, ungovernable shoots play out of it, the response likewise ungovernable,
Hair, bosom, hips, bend of legs, negligent falling hands all diffused, mine too diffused,
Ebb stung by the flow and flow stung by the ebb, love-flesh swelling and deliciously aching,
Limitless limpid jets of love hot and enormous, quivering jelly of love, white-blow and delirious juice,
Bridegroom night of love working surely and softly into the prostrate dawn,
Undulating into the willing and yielding day,
Lost in the cleave of the clasping and sweet-flesh’d day.

----------------------------------
Maybe a conversation like:

"'Love flesh swelling' like he's in love with some woman and they...he...?"

"Probably not, he didn't have any serious female relationships as far as I am aware."

"But the title is 'The female form'"

"Well, it's possible, but it's not likely the case that he was talking about himself being in love with a woman. This poem is in the text but he wrote many other pieces about he-himself falling into and out of love with various men and we have letters documenting those relationships with his male significant others. Although, I'm not sure what to call them because gay marriage would have been illegal at the time. He's likely writing the poem in a way where he appreciates the female form and sees men who are drawn to it like the way I appreciate watching bees act obsessively driven to the middle of flowers. I like watching Bees in action, but that doesn't mean I'm going all pollen crazy, still I appreciate it for what it is."
-------------------

This is an example of how discussion of sexuality would come up in my classroom as I imagine it. Note how I'm not trying to convince the kid I'm talking to to turn gay like it's a big game of rainbow-red-rover or something. Nevertheless, knowing the author's sexual preference in this instance informs our understanding of the piece.


My own personal theory?
The people railing against things like this are the same shitheads that can't be bothered to read ANYTHING and instead giggle and guffaw at "hurhurhurhur he hadd'a boner" where I get to live an early stage of Idocracy.

Also, I agree that the "funky stuff" shouldn't be just avoided altogether. For goodness sake, just let teachers have the difficult conversation that everyone is avoiding. Reminds me of when Peggy Hill was struggling to say "Penis" when she was assigned sex ed.

I hope this monument to opulence fails miserably and the developers lose their shirts.
There’s no way they won’t damage or destroy that reef.
The first big storm is going to destroy much of the sand island.
But, 10% are special protection zones! Won’t matter, they can’t survive if huge amounts of the non protected reef are destroyed.

Not to mention sea level rise will put it underwater quickly, it’s barely above current sea level in the plans.

Look at Mexico, dozens of comparatively tiny resorts not even on the reefs, but on land, and that reef is not 10% what it was in the mid 80’s. Building ON the reef is guaranteed to destroy it, as is tourism.

I hate when companies are allowed to build on natural wonders to exploit the beauty, they invariably destroy that beauty within decades. That entire reef/coastline should be off limits to construction so the two desert properties have an attraction. When the reefs die from sun tan lotion poisoning, bleaching, sand displacement, accidents with supply ships, the first major fuel spill, etc, that place will be a $5 billion waste, abandoned to the desert.

Remember the “islands of the world” project in Dubai? This sounds even less thought out than they were, more ecologically disastrous, needing more infrastructure to be built, requiring ships to bring fuel as there’s no nearby port to run pipelines from (guaranteeing oil spills). All for what? So billionaires can get off their yachts for a while in luxury?

Wiki-Significant changes in the maritime environment [of Dubai]. As a result of the dredging and redepositing of sand for the construction of the islands, the typically crystalline waters of the Persian Gulf at Dubai have become severely clouded with silt. Construction activity is damaging the marine habitat, burying coral reefs, oyster beds and subterranean fields of sea grass, threatening local marine species as well as other species dependent on them for food. Oyster beds have been covered in as much as two inches of sediment, while above the water, beaches are eroding with the disruption of natural currents.

That was a $12 billion project to exploit the pristine coast and beautiful waters that no longer exist, the islands themselves are sinking and eroding, most were evacuated or never used at all, the water is now mud colored, the reefs are gone. An unmitigated disaster. This sounds extremely similar.

Oppose this and similar projects.

The issue is the wrong guy, a dishonest blowhard trying to cover his own failures, claimed this early on with absolutely zero evidence. It was a clear dodge, his normal MO. Refusing any responsibility for ending the international pandemic response team that would have been able to actually say when and where the outbreak started, and likely be able to keep it relegated to one small area in China. By blaming it on a Chinese lab, actually saying it was intentional, he deflects from his abject failure to protect America from a clear, obvious, incontrovertibly deadly threat on the horizon….or any time after it’s discovery.
Were the Chinese studying Covid, yes, so were we. That’s not an indication of where it came from. There’s no evidence it came from any lab, only supposition at best.

Edit:Even if the guess that it came from a Chinese lab is correct, it doesn’t excuse one second of Trump’s (lack of) response and outright denials for months-years. The origin has nothing to do with the danger level, in fact, if it WERE enhanced/created in a lab as he claimed, that’s more reason to consider it MORE dangerous, not reason to claim it’s just a cold or mild flu and will disappear like magic in a few weeks. Granted, it was fun to see him (only after his trade deal fell apart) blame this deadly virus on the Chinese as an unforgivable deliberate act of germ warfare and accuse them of minimizing the danger and hiding the size and severity of the outbreak and in the same breath claim it’s nothing to worry about, not dangerous, probably not deadly, not worth any action to protect against, and just a minimal annoyance soon to disappear….but also disappointing to see how easily so many Americans glossed over the two faced hypocritical responsibility shirking stance he took.

This guy claims most, nearly all viruses can’t both infect people and be transmitted….what utter nonsense. If that were true, there would have never been epidemics, pandemics, not even outbreaks. Credibility destroyed.

I guess he didn’t hear about swine flu, or bird flu, or flu, or colds, or any transmittable virus. 🤦‍♂️
I guess they haven’t heard new mutations are far less deadly (but more transmittable) than earlier versions, so they are getting less dangerous, contrary to his claim.

Not transmitting well outdoors means it’s not natural?! Bullshit, animals nest together. Many natural viruses require close contact to transmit.

DNA testing proved early on that this is not a man made virus. Is it possible a Chinese lab made a natural virus more dangerous, then a lab mistake released it? Yes, but there’s no evidence that’s the case, even these people who’s livelihood relies on people accepting “the lab hypothesis” (hypothesis=guess) admit it’s all conjecture, there’s no evidence, certainly no proof. It’s not the lab theory because it’s unproven.

Duh.

BTW, this couple are married, anti vaxers, Ivermectin proponents, and were thrown out of Evergreen College, and are now both now discredited and disgraced. Their main source of income is now their anti vax, pro Ivermectin, Covid isn’t dangerous podcasts loved by morons like Joe Rogan, and a source of much of his misinformation that’s getting him removed from his platform.
“Bret Weinstein is one of the foremost purveyors of COVID-19 disinformation out there,” says Dr. David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and professor at Wayne State University who also debunks quack remedies as managing editor at a website called Science-Based Medicine. “Weinstein can be ‘credited’ with playing a large role in popularizing the belief that ivermectin is a miracle cure or preventative for COVID-19, that the vaccines are dangerous, and that the disease itself is not. Why are Rogan and Maher attracted to his messages? Contrarians and conspiracy theorists tend to be attracted to each other.”
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/09/16/bret-weinstein-and-heather-heying-go-unvaccinated-take-ivermectin/

Downvote discredited shills who profit from misinformation. No surprise at all, considering who posted this dishonest propaganda from discredited propagandists.

Your video, Tucker Carlson mad about being less sexually attracted MnMs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

He had to know that would attract cops and rescue crews. He should have put bigger balls on that Mannequin.

I ran across this on Netflix, and was amazed to find out there’s a climber the likes of Dan Osman and Alex Honnold that no one has ever heard of, who solo climbs the most difficult peaks in the world, often free climbing….all at first sight (having never seen the mountain in person). Going to climb the most difficult peak in Patagonia…climbing alone…and to add some difficulty he went mid winter when no sane person or group even considers going there.

Some people burn their candle at both ends…Marc-André burns his candle all at once, but never attracted attention…until now.

I highly suggest this movie if you like climbing, exploring, extreme sports, or just people being amazing with zero interest in fame.
*promote

I’ve had hair to my ass, and been totally bald. I never noticed a difference. If you don’t have an unattractive skull, either is fine with most ladies.
Now 1/2 bald like Larry, he’s right. They are seen as less attractive, confident, and dominant….and not just by ladies. Pick a lane! I went directly from 40”+ hair to 1/4”, then shaved once I tanned.

Much closer to the truth to say the boys who are anti choice are insecure incels who want SOME control over women since they can't attract any worth having themselves and have stopped thinking of women as people.

Btw, I think you're confused about what the word "fact" means, because you're using it wrong.

Sounds like he was trying to attract the Sesame Street demographic.