- Oct 29, 2017
- 65,389
- 10,789
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
I don't see the connection. Maybe you can break it down into a logical argument.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't see the connection. Maybe you can break it down into a logical argument.Right here:
Ted Cruz rails against Anheuser-Busch for stonewalling his probe of partnership with Dylan Mulvaney
Point taken. So if AB has alrady turned over their demographics to a review panel; then what is the harm in letting Cruz review it?You should really read your own links:
“The review panel completed its inquest and found ‘absolutely nothing’ in Dylan Mulvaney’s Instagram posts ‘that would have special attractiveness below the legal drinking age,’ according to its report.
The panel also reported that the beer company hired an outside firm to review Dylan Mulvaney’s Instagram audience age demographics, which found that over 80% of the influencer’s followers were 21 years or older. The marketing code has a compliance standard of over 73%.
A spokesperson for Anheuser-Busch InBev told The Washington Times that the company takes ‘its role in promoting responsible drinking very seriously, and our marketing is directed to adults of legal drinking age’.”
“When did you quit beating your wife?”—would you answer a loaded question like that?
You’re concerned that a 20 year old might see Bud light ads and think “why should I wait another year until I grab me a Bud light?”Now that we all know, the question is, do you understand what a millstone is and why one would be hung around a persons neck.
I’m guessing that the fine people at AB-InBev do not wish to find out “what harm” releasing these documents could maybe do?Point taken. So if AB has alrady turned over their demographics to a review panel; then what is the harm in letting Cruz review it?
Well it was already reviewed by the foxes at the review board. What could possibly go wrong?I’m guessing that the fine people at AB-InBev do not wish to find out “what harm” releasing these documents could maybe do?
This is Ted Cruz we’re talking about, could be nothing? Could be barrel-bacon? Who knows?Well it was already reviewed by the foxes at the review board. What could possibly go wrong?
Oh so that's who's behind drag queen story hour and LGBTQ curriculm in elementry schools and mobs marching down the street chanting "we're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children!" etc.The connection was pushed by bigoted conservatives, not the trans community.
Oh so that's who's behind drag queen story hour and LGBTQ curriculm in elementry schools and mobs marching down the street chanting "we're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children!" etc.
That argument might work if it wasn't for drag queen story hour, drag queen shows for kids and LGBTQ curriculum in elementry schools etc. It's like they get deeply involved with children, and then start that chant, but it's just supposed to be sarcasm and satire, even though it's actually happening in spades.The chant was an obvious (albeit ill-advised IMO) attempt at trolling the right regarding their pearl clutching about kids. Your side ought to be embarrassed that you guys can’t tell the difference between a genuine threat and sarcasm.
The Law of the land says that people who are LGBTQIA+ cannot be discriminated against in employment or public accommodations and the earlier kids begin to know this, the better, so that they can respect the Laws that we all live under.That argument might work if it wasn't for drag queen story hour, drag queen shows for kids and LGBTQ curriculum in elementry schools etc. It's like they get deeply involved with children, and then start that chant, but it's just supposed to be sarcasm and satire, even though it's actually happening in spades.
The law of the land says people period can not be discriminated against. Drag queen story hour, drag queen shows for kids with erotic kinky outfits, and teaching little kids in elementary school about all the multiple genders and orientations they can be, obviously doesn't really have anything to do with that.The Law of the land says that people who are LGBTQIA+ cannot be discriminated against in employment or public accommodations and the earlier kids begin to know this, the better, so that they can respect the Laws that we all live under.
What does it have to do with?The law of the land says people period can not be discriminated against. Drag queen story hour, drag queen shows for kids with erotic kinky outfits, and teaching little kids in elementary school about all the multiple genders and orientations they can be, obviously doesn't really have anything to do with that.
All of the LGBTQQIP2SAA+ stuff involving children doesn't really have anything to do with a fight against discrimination, but rather it's about gaining control over society.What does it have to do with?
The argument would work if your side understood sarcasm.That argument might work if it wasn't for drag queen story hour, drag queen shows for kids and LGBTQ curriculum in elementry schools etc. It's like they get deeply involved with children, and then start that chant, but it's just supposed to be sarcasm and satire, even though it's actually happening in spades.
Clowns aren't all about sexuality, multiple genders and multiple sexual orientations. Drag queens are. What LGBTQQIP2SAA+ wants to recruit is a society that happily goes along with whatever they want.The argument would work if your side understood sarcasm.
If a clown were reading to kids at the library, would you be concerned that the clown was trying to recruit them into clown college? No? Then why do you fear that drag queens are trying to recruit them into being lgbtq?
Clown college, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.The argument would work if your side understood sarcasm.
If a clown were reading to kids at the library, would you be concerned that the clown was trying to recruit them into clown college? No? Then why do you fear that drag queens are trying to recruit them into being lgbtq?
Yes, one day our children will be running things, that’s why they should have all the requisite knowledge of “who is ’allowed’ where/when” before they take over.All of the LGBTQQIP2SAA+ stuff involving children doesn't really have anything to do with a fight against discrimination, but rather it's about gaining control over society.
“Clowns* don’t do it for the sexual-jollies that drag queens do!” [Not a direct quote AFAIK, but it’ve seen this sentiment here before]The argument would work if your side understood sarcasm.
If a clown were reading to kids at the library, would you be concerned that the clown was trying to recruit them into clown college? No? Then why do you fear that drag queens are trying to recruit them into being lgbtq?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?