ozimoron

You should imagine that I don't also search. That doesn't take away from my point that it is mandatory to post a link to any claims of fact.

Totally leading questions encompassing 5% of the political spectrum.

I never suggested you were. You suggested that you should be able to post anything you like and required readers to prove or disprove your claim. That isn't how the rules here work.

Suppression of critical race theory is anything but inappropriate. The point was made by another poster was that politicians should not be the ones setting the rules.

It is self evident that his intelligence services would have had the transcript immediately. My point, and I repeat, was that Johnson was weak for not reporting it publicly at the time.

My original post about this was a complaint that Johnson failed to publicly report this. For that he is weak. You replied "However, it is quite clear that Johbson reported the threat some time ago. " I asked you to show us where. You are attempting to move the goal posts.

The rules here are designed to ensure that people back up their arguments with links and don't force other readers to hit google every post. This prevents people from posting lies and conspiracy theories.

Prospective GOP candidates for president are leaning heavily into education amid concerns over issues like parental rights and the politicization of school curriculums. Underscoring how critical an issue it is for Republicans, former President Trump unveiled his education platform on Thursday, calling for cutting federal funds to any education program that involves “critical race theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content onto our children.” Their actions come as potential GOP candidates search for winning issues after a disappointing midterm election. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3833724-republicans-see-education-as-winning-issue-in-2024/ edit: note the right wing press' inability to spell curricula.

You implied that it was publicly known ages ago. Now it's only today. You've proven my point. Why didn't Johnson announce it contemporaneously?

Show us where Johnson publicly announced this. I'm sure MI6 knew all about it as well. And the CIA.

The greatest moron that ever graced politics. He doesn't care when its blacks killing blacks. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) suggested that he would not take any action after the death of Tyre Nichols because he said that there is no "law that can stop that evil." https://www.rawstory.com/jim-jordan-tyre-nichols

The producers knowing about it and the public knowing about it are not the same. My point is that Jonson did not publicly announce it to the best of my knowledge. Or yours it seems.

It should be banned from schools anyway based on the principles of the separation of church and state and of inclusion.

The "hillbilly" version was the norm in Chiang Mai 40 years ago so I guess that answers your question.

Based on the definition of woke that would be educated people.

Correct, I wouldn't. And that book is banned based on complaint, not automatic exclusion.

where?

It is keeping kids safe. Banning every book except for "ideologically correct" books is dangerous for kids. I've made my point and now I have work to do. Enjoy your day ????

Whatever happened to the black and white minstrel show?

It's not about classroom libraries, that a right wing talking point. It's all school libraries.

What they are doing is censoring every book available without having to explain why, unless it conforms to their ideology. No other state or country does that. They should rely on complaints then review the complaint, just like everyone else does. This complaint system underpins our whole society.

That's self evidently not the case. A point was made and you failed to refute it with any kind of argument. Your opinion of what is truth and what is not doesn't interest anybody. You need to bring people over to your point of view. Failing to even attempt that is irritating. .

It's straight out censorship. If they want to censor a book they should name it and explain why. Nobody objects to censoring pornography in schools, as an example. It's always been that way. The legislation is clearly a way to exclude books they don't like for political reasons without have to name them and explain why.

Your post didn't allude to any truth did it. Simply writing "false" is nothing other than irritating and a waste of time. Make an argument or keep your peace.

A positive contribution or just being irritating?