BrooksBearLives said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

---

First of all, she's a politician. Politics is literally her thing.

Secondly, this all started when someone else politicized wearing a facemask and she responded. Ocasio-Cortez literally has reporters following behind her and snapping creepy pics of her clothes complaining about how she's not "poor enough" and THIS is the hill you choose to die on?

Grow up, dude. There are plenty of actual reasons to disagree with her. I even have a few. But don't give her **** about politicizing things when she's just responding to others.

You have to get over it.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Again with your obsession about other people's love-lives. You have a strange fixation.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Again with your obsession about other people's love-lives. You have a strange fixation.

---

Quit playing dumb. This is about social engineering.

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Again with your obsession about other people's love-lives. You have a strange fixation.

---

This is a thread about culture & society. Last time I checked this was a big issue and people trying to change toys to further their LGBTQ agenda is a big story in society right now. If you don't care then don't read it.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Again with your obsession about other people's love-lives. You have a strange fixation.

---

This is a thread about culture & society. Last time I checked this was a big issue and people trying to change toys to further their LGBTQ agenda is a big story in society right now. If you don't care then don't read it.

---

What "agenda" do you think the LGBTQ has?

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Again with your obsession about other people's love-lives. You have a strange fixation.

---

This is a thread about culture & society. Last time I checked this was a big issue and people trying to change toys to further their LGBTQ agenda is a big story in society right now. If you don't care then don't read it.

---

What "agenda" do you think the LGBTQ has?

---

You know the answer to that, we've seen it over the past 20+ years. Not everyone, but the politics of it is always used as a wedge for liberals.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Again with your obsession about other people's love-lives. You have a strange fixation.

---

This is a thread about culture & society. Last time I checked this was a big issue and people trying to change toys to further their LGBTQ agenda is a big story in society right now. If you don't care then don't read it.

---

What "agenda" do you think the LGBTQ has?

---

You know the answer to that, we've seen it over the past 20+ years. Not everyone, but the politics of it is always used as a wedge for liberals.

---

No. I'm not letting you off the hook.

You said there was an agenda. Please explain it. Use broad strokes, if you must.

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Again with your obsession about other people's love-lives. You have a strange fixation.

---

This is a thread about culture & society. Last time I checked this was a big issue and people trying to change toys to further their LGBTQ agenda is a big story in society right now. If you don't care then don't read it.

---

What "agenda" do you think the LGBTQ has?

---

You know the answer to that, we've seen it over the past 20+ years. Not everyone, but the politics of it is always used as a wedge for liberals.

---

No. I'm not letting you off the hook.

You said there was an agenda. Please explain it. Use broad strokes, if you must.

---

No reason to play your games. Anyone living under a rock knows what I'm talking about, nice try though. Carry on. Plus, I'm trying to work so no need to get into these silly debates that doesn't help anyone anyway.

I see your Cinque 2.0 acct is on fire lately. Well done.
Your team has been ignoring our questions and not calling out your own side for criminal acts for years. Maybe some day...

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Again with your obsession about other people's love-lives. You have a strange fixation.

---

Quit playing dumb. This is about social engineering.

---

I'm sorry, but what?

Could you please explain to me what you mean by "social engineering?" This is an honest question.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Those fighting for civil rights for african Americans literally had to FORCE America to threat them equally.

Those fighting them used literally the exact same complaint you just used.

Are you sure you want to put yourself on this side of history?

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Again with your obsession about other people's love-lives. You have a strange fixation.

---

This is a thread about culture & society. Last time I checked this was a big issue and people trying to change toys to further their LGBTQ agenda is a big story in society right now. If you don't care then don't read it.

---

What "agenda" do you think the LGBTQ has?

---

You know the answer to that, we've seen it over the past 20+ years. Not everyone, but the politics of it is always used as a wedge for liberals.

---

No. I'm not letting you off the hook.

You said there was an agenda. Please explain it. Use broad strokes, if you must.

---

It wasn't my statement but I'll give it a shot

The LGBTQ wanted marriage because a civil union wasn't good enough. They were able to redefine marriage to include two adults , regardless of sex. With that win, they wanted to be considered normal in living/ acting outside of what had always been the conventional norms. That has gained traction. Now with that gaining traction, every nut-job headcase wants their special case to become the new norm. As a result, we have calls for Ken's boyfriend over market forces and genderless Santa over traditional Santa. We have Target scared to merchandise a boys department and a girls department because the new social justice outweighs market forces. Fat is not fat, not is it unhealthy. It's just the new normal (yes, I'm fat 5'7", 200lbs)

What used to be different is now normal and different cannot be condemned.

Political correctness was being spineless but is now normal.
Tats were different but are now normal
Piercing was different now normal
Ear gauges (sp) were different now normal
Cutting was different now normal
Pink hair was different now normal
Fat was different now normal
Public F-bombs now normal
Trans now normal
Same-sex now normal
Gender fluidity quickly becoming normal

The list is long and getting longer by the day

Simple things like growing up and wanting freedom and a drives license were normal but not any longer.

What used to good is bad and bad is good.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Again with your obsession about other people's love-lives. You have a strange fixation.

---

This is a thread about culture & society. Last time I checked this was a big issue and people trying to change toys to further their LGBTQ agenda is a big story in society right now. If you don't care then don't read it.

---

What "agenda" do you think the LGBTQ has?

---

You know the answer to that, we've seen it over the past 20+ years. Not everyone, but the politics of it is always used as a wedge for liberals.

---

No. I'm not letting you off the hook.

You said there was an agenda. Please explain it. Use broad strokes, if you must.

---

It wasn't my statement but I'll give it a shot

The LGBTQ wanted marriage because a civil union wasn't good enough. They were able to redefine marriage to include two adults , regardless of sex. With that win, they wanted to be considered normal in living/ acting outside of what had always been the conventional norms. That has gained traction. Now with that gaining traction, every nut-job headcase wants their special case to become the new norm. As a result, we have calls for Ken's boyfriend over market forces and genderless Santa over traditional Santa. We have Target scared to merchandise a boys department and a girls department because the new social justice outweighs market forces. Fat is not fat, not is it unhealthy. It's just the new normal (yes, I'm fat 5'7", 200lbs)

What used to be different is now normal and different cannot be condemned.

Political correctness was being spineless but is now normal.
Tats were different but are now normal
Piercing was different now normal
Ear gauges (sp) were different now normal
Cutting was different now normal
Pink hair was different now normal
Fat was different now normal
Public F-bombs now normal
Trans now normal
Same-sex now normal
Gender fluidity quickly becoming normal

The list is long and getting longer by the day

Simple things like growing up and wanting freedom and a drives license were normal but not any longer.

What used to good is bad and bad is good.

---

So your problem is that there's more acceptance in the world?

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Again with your obsession about other people's love-lives. You have a strange fixation.

---

This is a thread about culture & society. Last time I checked this was a big issue and people trying to change toys to further their LGBTQ agenda is a big story in society right now. If you don't care then don't read it.

---

What "agenda" do you think the LGBTQ has?

---

You know the answer to that, we've seen it over the past 20+ years. Not everyone, but the politics of it is always used as a wedge for liberals.

---

No. I'm not letting you off the hook.

You said there was an agenda. Please explain it. Use broad strokes, if you must.

---

It wasn't my statement but I'll give it a shot

The LGBTQ wanted marriage because a civil union wasn't good enough. They were able to redefine marriage to include two adults , regardless of sex. With that win, they wanted to be considered normal in living/ acting outside of what had always been the conventional norms. That has gained traction. Now with that gaining traction, every nut-job headcase wants their special case to become the new norm. As a result, we have calls for Ken's boyfriend over market forces and genderless Santa over traditional Santa. We have Target scared to merchandise a boys department and a girls department because the new social justice outweighs market forces. Fat is not fat, not is it unhealthy. It's just the new normal (yes, I'm fat 5'7", 200lbs)

What used to be different is now normal and different cannot be condemned.

Political correctness was being spineless but is now normal.
Tats were different but are now normal
Piercing was different now normal
Ear gauges (sp) were different now normal
Cutting was different now normal
Pink hair was different now normal
Fat was different now normal
Public F-bombs now normal
Trans now normal
Same-sex now normal
Gender fluidity quickly becoming normal

The list is long and getting longer by the day

Simple things like growing up and wanting freedom and a drives license were normal but not any longer.

What used to good is bad and bad is good.

---

So your problem is that there's more acceptance in the world?

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Okay. So we finally get to it.

You think Gays "taking over" is going to end the world by degrading our social structure and culture.

Is that fair?

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Okay. So we finally get to it.

You think Gays "taking over" is going to end the world by degrading our social structure and culture.

Is that fair?

---

Of course you stereotype and think I'm making my argument from a hateful place.

I don't hate gays or trans people, I don't care what they do. They have the full right to be whatever they want.

What I hate is people like you who think they're "woke" and decide the fabric of society needs to be challenged.
That is an agenda.

When people like you say "You can be any gender you want child", you're inviting them to choose. The child who would have been perfectly normal is now confused, pumped full of hormones and screwed up. You think you're being proactive, fighting against hate, bigotry etc....you're not. You have a radically different view of how society should be and it's not one that has existed for thousands of years. You don't even think about the ramifications these things can have.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Okay. So we finally get to it.

You think Gays "taking over" is going to end the world by degrading our social structure and culture.

Is that fair?

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You're serious? Having two parents in the home is absolutely preferable. Where did I argue against that?

Show me THAT data.

---

riflebear said:

---

This is what happens when you give liberals control for 8 years...

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You're serious? Having two parents in the home is absolutely preferable. Where did I argue against that?

Show me THAT data.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You're serious? Having two parents in the home is absolutely preferable. Where did I argue against that?

Show me THAT data.

---

you didn't. But it fits well with the laundry list of items I listed that are now acceptable.

I noticed you said two parents. Do you believe that, on average, a child has a better chance being raised by a) two moms b) two dads c) one mom and one dad in the same home?
Why did you answer as you did?

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You're serious? Having two parents in the home is absolutely preferable. Where did I argue against that?

Show me THAT data.

---

you didn't. But it fits well with the laundry list of items I listed that are now acceptable.

I noticed you said two parents. Do you believe that, on average, a child has a better chance being raised by a) two moms b) two dads c) one mom and one dad in the same home?
Why did you answer as you did?

---

Available data says there are more important factors indicating future success than the number of parents. For instance, income is MUCH more closely correlated to success than just having two parents in the house.

I said two parents because that's what I meant. There is pretty much no data suggesting two moms or two dads or a mom and grandma, etc make you end up better or "worse." Especially when success is so incredibly subjective.

Same-sex parent units show no negative effects on their children. I was reading a few months ago how, out of 79 studies on this 75 show no difference between same sex parents and mixed sex parents (and the four outliers had serious sampling issues).

I can try and find that if you want.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You're serious? Having two parents in the home is absolutely preferable. Where did I argue against that?

Show me THAT data.

---

you didn't. But it fits well with the laundry list of items I listed that are now acceptable.

I noticed you said two parents. Do you believe that, on average, a child has a better chance being raised by a) two moms b) two dads c) one mom and one dad in the same home?
Why did you answer as you did?

---

Available data says there are more important factors indicating future success than the number of parents. For instance, income is MUCH more closely correlated to success than just having two parents in the house.

I said two parents because that's what I meant. There is pretty much no data suggesting two moms or two dads or a mom and grandma, etc make you end up better or "worse." Especially when success is so incredibly subjective.

Same-sex parent units show no negative effects on their children. I was reading a few months ago how, out of 79 studies on this 75 show no difference between same sex parents and mixed sex parents (and the four outliers had serious sampling issues).

I can try and find that if you want.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You're serious? Having two parents in the home is absolutely preferable. Where did I argue against that?

Show me THAT data.

---

you didn't. But it fits well with the laundry list of items I listed that are now acceptable.

I noticed you said two parents. Do you believe that, on average, a child has a better chance being raised by a) two moms b) two dads c) one mom and one dad in the same home?
Why did you answer as you did?

---

Available data says there are more important factors indicating future success than the number of parents. For instance, income is MUCH more closely correlated to success than just having two parents in the house.

I said two parents because that's what I meant. There is pretty much no data suggesting two moms or two dads or a mom and grandma, etc make you end up better or "worse." Especially when success is so incredibly subjective.

Same-sex parent units show no negative effects on their children. I was reading a few months ago how, out of 79 studies on this 75 show no difference between same sex parents and mixed sex parents (and the four outliers had serious sampling issues).

I can try and find that if you want.

---

no reason to. Keep me listed in the bigot category.

I firmly believe that a dad brings certain things into a child's life that a mom doesn't and vice verse (on average ). It will take a generation or two for us to get realistic data on two moms/dads. There have not been enough around for a long enough period of time to provide enough data points to be accurate.

At this point, I'll choose to disagree with you.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

You're serious? Having two parents in the home is absolutely preferable. Where did I argue against that?

Show me THAT data.

---

you didn't. But it fits well with the laundry list of items I listed that are now acceptable.

I noticed you said two parents. Do you believe that, on average, a child has a better chance being raised by a) two moms b) two dads c) one mom and one dad in the same home?
Why did you answer as you did?

---

Available data says there are more important factors indicating future success than the number of parents. For instance, income is MUCH more closely correlated to success than just having two parents in the house.

I said two parents because that's what I meant. There is pretty much no data suggesting two moms or two dads or a mom and grandma, etc make you end up better or "worse." Especially when success is so incredibly subjective.

Same-sex parent units show no negative effects on their children. I was reading a few months ago how, out of 79 studies on this 75 show no difference between same sex parents and mixed sex parents (and the four outliers had serious sampling issues).

I can try and find that if you want.

---

no reason to. Keep me listed in the bigot category.

I firmly believe that a dad brings certain things into a child's life that a mom doesn't and vice verse (on average ). It will take a generation or two for us to get realistic data on two moms/dads. There have not been enough around for a long enough period of time to provide enough data points to be accurate.

At this point, I'll choose to disagree with you.

---

I am the beneficiary of a loving mother and father who loved each other MADLY. I lost my father four years ago and the hurt hasn't subsided. I still haven't been able to take his number out of my phone. It's still there and I want to call it all the time. I'm raising two girls with my beautiful wife.

But my cousins lost their father -my uncle- 30 years ago. It was especially hard on the 2 and 4 year olds who never really knew my uncle. I got to know him a bit and I was lucky for it (we were practically raised in the same home).

They're doctors and marines officers and social workers and artists and accomplished coaches -my cousin just was named coach of the year for his division (there was 7 of them).

My dad made a special difference. I like to think I'm making a special difference. But I work with amazing young people every day who come from all kinds of backgrounds two parents. One parent. Every permutation in between. I'm thinking that parents mean a lot less than just being loved and cared for. And that's not something limited to "traditional" nuclear families. A bad father can screw you up just as much as a good one can help you.

I'm really disappointed you won't even look at the data. It seemed like it meant a lot to you when you thought it would back up your world view. I'd think you'd care about it now. Maybe you'll come back to it later.
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

---

riflebear said:

---

Great news for young kids they don't have to believe in science anymore therefore we can stop teaching it in school.

---