This is incorrect.

Here's a story about a group of librarians in CT praising the decision to remove the books: https://www.courant.com/news/connect...o6u-story.html

Here's a story about how some libraries are choosing not to remove the books: https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/so...blication-halt

Here's a story about libraries in Virginia which are removing the problematic books: https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news...r-seuss-books/

Here's a story about how some libraries in Toronto and Vancouver and contemplating the possibility of putting the books back on the shelves, after having already removed them: https://www.660citynews.com/2021/03/...racist-images/

 

 

When someone says "banned" I take it that they are trying to imply there has been a government ban on the books being available.

Not a few libraries in the country removing them. But this reply implies that I care about this particular issue, I don't.

Carry on.

 

Damn, I never thought the day would come that JoeP would quote the Daily Caller as a reliable source.

Maybe Brain has hacked into your account?

Edit: BTW, I have to give credit to good2go and chiefmg. You guys have been knocking them out of the park lately. I've been thoroughly entertained. Much better than Netflix.

 

When it comes to matters of opinion or analysis, I'd tend to agree with you.

When it comes to just referencing a single, factual quotation, well, is it your assertion that all three of the sources I cited are lying?

 

Joe, you and I are roughly the same age I believe. While we both grew up in Florida, I believe we grew up far enough apart for you not to know what I'm about to reference.

When I was a young man I remember tuning in to the independent local channel to get my news as I went to bed just after 10. The network guys gave their local news at 11 and I was knocked out by then. Something happened as I finished off my teen years, late 80's early 90's. The independent local station turned into a Fox channel and the news studio turned into the NewsPlex with fancy desks and lighting and wardrobe and make-up endorsements. Rick Sanchez was a big deal around here and every headline was a terrible alliteration and everything was "shocking, shocking, shocking". At first it was just the Fox channel and then it became all of them. We never had cable so my TV experience was always over the air stuff. So, I stopped watching the news, since it stopped being news and attempted to be entertainment, which I didn't find entertaining. I never read the paper. And I found my life was the same without knowing any "news". I mean, can anyone stand to watch the Weather Channel anymore? What use is any of this stuff? Yeah, I may be ignorant, but my eyes and ears tell me all I need to know.

So to answer your question, I have no idea what the Daily Caller is or what they write in there. I only know I've seen you ribbing Brain about using them as a source and thought it'd be fun to rib you back.

 

Understood.

And the reality of the situation is that, as Brainey preaches, there is in fact a lot of selectivity in what various media outlets report. It's extremely uncommon to find one actually falsifying information, but they may choose not to report certain things, or to use a different perspective in that reporting.

Whether or not a former first lady read a book to some children several years back isn't really news per se, so I don't expect to find references to it from CNN. This is pure mud-slinging, so the only factual evidence for it which is close at hand is naturally going to be from fringe-media outlets which exhibit a strong bias in their reporting, and engage more in pandering to certain extreme-political-viewpoint groups than in actual journalism.

 

 

Wasn’t sure where this belongs - check the dates.

 

 

 

 

 

Said every "journalist"/progressive asshat.

 

 

 

Being a straight male I have difficulty understanding why someone born male would prefer to go thru all the operations to become an imitation woman instead of just identifying as a gay male cross dresser.
On a side note notice how much the hair grows in a few years.

 

Because, over and over and over, day in and out, kids are told to be themselves.

but "by themselves" is actually defined as: a fake character that would satisfy the sexual needs of an adult liberal and do well on Only Fans.

 

I think the biggest improvement between those two pics is the smile. Makes all the difference.