This sounds like a really good idea. It's retard-proof unless the parent gives the kid access to the adult device. Wouldn't that just push the problem back a step, though (from your perspective)? Wouldn't there be the issue of the Dems removing sites with religious, race-related, or anti-LGBT etc. information from the whitelist? Or restricting it to "get-groomed-and-become-a eunuch-for-the-empire.com"?
This is also a good idea, but is the population too retarded to make it plausible to enforce?
Iran is not going to go non theocratic or moderate imo, the IRGC has too much power and are too devoted to the theocracy. Best case scenario is a Shia Junta
Because parents these days want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the status and benefits of a parent but don't want to put in the work that makes a parent a parent. It's why they will shove their kids in front of the TV 24/7 while they fuck-off to do something else. It's why they will dump their kids with grandma even though she already went through this shit decades ago and thought she was free from all of that. It's why we have things like speed zones and street cameras all over the place because rather than tell little jimmy to "get the fuck off of the street or else you will die", they instead believe relying on the government to do the parenting is a brilliant idea.
The issue about Porn not being speech is looking into who is funding it and where are their data-centers and where are they incorporated.
This sounds like what was in place during my own junior high years. My best friend at the time had his parents opt him out of sex ed because they believed it was their job and theirs alone to teach him about that and not a school's. He was sent to the library to work on homework and play solitaire.
A number of school districts looked for creative end-around methods to sidestep parental objections. I forget in which state it was, but one school district decided to include its LGBTetc content in the mandatory presentations against bullying specifically so parents would be unable to opt their kids out. SCOTUS, through its ruling, has metaphorically said, Nice try, but sorry, Charlie
.
I bet, me too, but when does this happen? Sincere question? Every non-abstinence-only sex ed program I ever encountered managed to teach about condoms, birth control, how pregnancy works, and STIs. The good ones managed to include consent. Every high school I was ever familiar with had condoms available for free. As far as I see, it's generally the sex ed programs driving the idea of safe sex home, and the kids that are going to be kids and ignore the advice anyway.
See, this is infuriating. It's as if everyone in the class gets to learn how the world actually works, and this one poor freak gets to read fanfic in the library.
So, if not birth, what determines citizenship? Does every potential American citizen have to pass a test like a new immigrant would? At what point in their life? These are sincere questions. I'm having trouble envisioning it.
these people fundamentally misunderstand birthright citizenship.
agreed. now if only they would stop putting things like "we will genocide the jews" into their political charters for organizations, stop voting parties that support genocide into power, and actually do something more than just try and take over countries when they're given refugee status, that might actually matter, because as it is, the war they started is ongoing because they hate da jooz.
that's literally my point summed up. heterosexual-led sex education is NOT like that, in any way, but if you look at sex education when it's run by lunatic liberals, that is exactly the sort of thing they advocate. free love, take medicine if you get a disease don't prevent them, etc. if it feels better without a condom do it, it's not like men can get pregnant, etc. that kind of shit is everywhere in lgbt sex education. it's all about 'reducing stigma' for things that are undeniably bad things to do.
I mean, this has ultimately always been the problem with 1A jurisprudence wrt obscenity - how do you unambiguously determine what is purely obscene and what is protected speech? Is an art hoe taking nude OF pictures of herself with "FREE GAZA" pornographic or is it an artistic political expression? Do we have to show ID to use twitter now because people post lewd photos and drawings on it? What level of lewd ultimately makes something obscene?
Muslims want to do the same to you.
To a US Citizen and a legal Permanent Resident. Melania became a citizen about three months after Barron was born. That makes Barron a natural born US citizen through his father.
As I've stated previously, the most logical solution is to create computer versions of those bark phones that restrict social media, no web browser, texting only to accepted contacts, and contacts/apps are controlled by the parent.
He also has a US parent, which means he isn't an anchor baby.
Not only that, there's an entire (or was several years ago at least) ecosystem around pregnant girls in Mexico being smuggled here just to give birth. In the hospital, suddenly they're all Americans and they then start fetching family members to come live with them.
You could argue that it IS freedom of expression though
Cope.I know for a fact, a bunch of people on the left genuinely want MAGAts to die because they do not go along with the gay shit.Mind you these 'conservatives' are not as harsh in their beliefs as the ultra conservatives Muslims.So i highly doubt they are 'principled' in their fight.Ask one of them what they think should happen to a moderate Christian family.
I kind of get their core arguments though, what stops the next Dem president from declaring all guns illegal ?
Shut-up you stupid infidel
