(03-02-2023 04:11 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Just responding to the headline....

This is a waste of political capital and time. The government should not be determining how people can dress or what they can choose as entertainment. They can certainly limit content as it pertains to minors, but it would be a HUGE MISTAKE for them to just blanketly decide that a show (or costume party) with a man wearing a dress is illegal.

The point has been made that the law is directed as kids in the audience.

Some have demonstrated that there is definitely behavior directed towards kids that should rightfully be restricted.

My point is that I think the law is vague -- it is using a standard that is indeterminable.

My second point is that vague obscenity laws are a minefield of disaster of over-application.

For example -- a danger of restricting a non-sexual reading books by a bearded man dressed fully yet in a dress, to a childs reading group.

Or by restricting a play open to the public with children in the audience, of a Dolly Parton imitator who is a male.

I would prefer a law that is more objective in nature, and tends to be less subjective. One that tends to act to reduce the chance of it being applied to the above.

Others are saying 'great law, stops the guy in a wig from twerking with his junk in the kids' faces, let the innocent people who are affected sue their way out of the issue'.

Which has now progressed to discussion of morality of the guy in a dress reading to children.

I know you answered further up in the thread but the part of the law you are referring to has been the definition of "harmful to a minors" in the state of TN for some time...its not like that just appeared because of drag shows in front of kids.

And if that's the case, as in, the overly broad definition of "harmful to minors" has been law for some time.... where are all of the innocent people impacted by the law already in place?

The 'harmful to minor' definition was supplied specifically for Tennessee Code 39-17 et seq -- which is directed at films, books, and stuff like that. That was the section you posted.

SB3 as passed *creates* the brand new offense "to perform adult cabaret" to Tenn 7-51-1407.

It is a brand new offense. There have never been 'innocent victims' of the law in question in Tennessee -- it isnt around.

----------------

To expand, the phrase is part of the SCOTUS Miller test.

One very famous misapplication of that standard occurred in Florida -- 2LiveCrew and the song "Nasty as They Wanna Be".

The Broward County Sheriff tried to use his office and the Fla law (which contains the "work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" Miller standard) to discourage sales by threating store owners with arrest for selling the track.

2LiveCrew filed suit to enjoin the Sheriff. The Fla Federal District Court found the work to be obscene. The Appellate court found the trial judge could not find that the musical work had no artistic value by simply by listening to the music. And it could not be found that the work "lack[ed] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"

That is just one example.

The music world, film world, and public performance world is filled with misapplications of the Miller test prong of "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

In the book world, in Virginia just recently an individual sued to try and stop sales of the book "A Court of Mist and Fury" to minors based on explicit sex scenes. Again, the phrase was a cornerstone in the action being dismissed.

The sticking point to a huge amount of obscenity case for the last 30 years has been this clause.

That clause is flipping legal quicksand.

And yes, Nasty as They Wanna Be is highly crude, and highly offensive to many. But, while all of the above, it is not obscene.

The interesting thing is because of how murky that standard is, obscenity prosecutions have dropped to negligible amounts overall.

(03-02-2023 05:20 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:25 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:18 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 03:54 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 03:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I think that Barteet has every right to keep his kids away from that. Its his right.

Just like it is the Colorado baker's right not to have to bake and decorate a cake for something he does not believe in.

I dont begrudge him the right for him to not have his kids there.

But, Barteet *is* a pinhead, an absolute pinhead to boot, for wanting that person who reads to kids to go to jail for that.

Right, no one is making anyone go to a library story hour where a drag queen reads, or a brunch where a drag queen sings Dolly Parton. They have the right to do those things, other people have the right not to go.

I have yet to hear about anyone being held down and forced to watch a drag show.

Are you saying the things that have been linked to as examples of where kids are being abused and subjected to obscene and sexual performance is someone's first ammendment right?



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

No, I’m saying a man wearing a dress has every bit the right to read at the library story hour as a woman in a dress, and you have the right to decide if you want to take your kid. I’m saying that either a man or a woman in a dress should be judged by their actions, not their attire as long as it is appropriate for the activity. You know, just equal protection under the constitution.

If you are so spun up about banning things with a history of abusing children I would start with a law that prohibits youth pastors from being around minors.

Ok

And the links I provided and others provided in this thread, is that appropriate behavior or no?

And what about males pretending to be women playing in women's sports? Appropriate or no?

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

If you want to ban the behavior ban the behavior no matter what genitals they have. Write laws that aren’t discriminatory.

Max --

to repeat my question from last night:

What is so fundamentally wrong with trying, at the outset, to minimize the vagueness that surrounds the language?

Is that really so bad to try and attempt to do so?

(03-02-2023 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Max --

to repeat my question from last night:

What is so fundamentally wrong with trying, at the outset, to minimize the vagueness that surrounds the language?

Is that really so bad to try and attempt to do so?

I have no objections to that, but every single law on the books has ambiguity, whether purposeful or not.

Ultimately, whether people will admit it or not, these disgusting events are happening and kids are involved. It needs to stop...immediately. If this law at least spurs that into action then I guess I can live with it.

Were you this outspoken about the DOJ using ambiguous laws against the sidewalk preacher whose house they raided with dozens of armed agents? The one who didn't do anything and the jury came back with a not-guilty verdict in like an hour?



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

(03-02-2023 05:29 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 05:20 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:25 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:18 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 03:54 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Right, no one is making anyone go to a library story hour where a drag queen reads, or a brunch where a drag queen sings Dolly Parton. They have the right to do those things, other people have the right not to go.

I have yet to hear about anyone being held down and forced to watch a drag show.

Are you saying the things that have been linked to as examples of where kids are being abused and subjected to obscene and sexual performance is someone's first ammendment right?



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

No, I’m saying a man wearing a dress has every bit the right to read at the library story hour as a woman in a dress, and you have the right to decide if you want to take your kid. I’m saying that either a man or a woman in a dress should be judged by their actions, not their attire as long as it is appropriate for the activity. You know, just equal protection under the constitution.

If you are so spun up about banning things with a history of abusing children I would start with a law that prohibits youth pastors from being around minors.

Ok

And the links I provided and others provided in this thread, is that appropriate behavior or no?

And what about males pretending to be women playing in women's sports? Appropriate or no?

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

If you want to ban the behavior ban the behavior no matter what genitals they have. Write laws that aren’t discriminatory.

You didn't answer the questions.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

The fact that I think men wearing dresses are freaks does not make me a bigot. It does make you guys idiots though. You like men in dresses have at it. I don't, and you can't make me.

Probably you all wear dresses too. c'est la viec'est

And tanq, you can't insult me. I don't give a flying fk about your opinion. You're just an old rummy who has seen better days.

(03-02-2023 04:25 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:00 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Keep in mind these are the same people who think mentioning Marxism and social rot in the same sentence is conflating two separate issues.

Keep in mind this dude doesnt seem to realize that that age old issue that he keeps repeating as a mantra didnt quite hold up so well in the light of history.

Damn commies/ hippies/ dope smokers/ faggots/ MLK supporters/ Jewboy race workers/ Lefty screen writers.

That same argument that you cling to was used to describe the activities of every single group listed above. Didnt work out the way ol' Marx said, did it? I guess it sounds cool when you intentionally ignore its application through the US history.

Applying it to guys wearing dresses reading to kids is really funny in that context. But please keep beating that drum.

Yep, guys in dresses reading to kids is the APOCALYPSE for our society. THE APOCALYPSE!!!!

Man if I wasnt actually in this channel, I'd think you all were creations in South Park.

Oh, there's another one to add to the list of Damn commies/ hippies/ dope smokers/ faggots/ MLK supporters/ Jewboy race workers/ Lefty screen writers --

It *should* be Damn commies/ hippies/ dope smokers/ faggots/ MLK supporters/ Jewboy race workers/ Lefty screen writer/ South Park/ guys in gingham dresses reading to kids --- all the downfall of everything we know.

This **** is CLASSIC!!!

If you dont think or believe there has been slow rot, that started decades ago, and slow infiltration of leftist / socialist / communist ideals into every aspect of American life then there is no hope for you.

Hambone mentioned you are a "conservative"

Your subsequent response to this post will prove that... or not.

Max, my comment is specifically to the continued use of Marx's comment about destroying a system by introducing moral rot at the core.

Since he made that quote, that quote has been used as a rationale to discredit screenwriters in Hollywood, hippies in the 60s and 70s, dope smokers, gays, MKL was accused of being Marxist in his quest for civil rights, the 'Jewboy' civil rights workers who went to the South in the bloody decade of the 60s....

None of these instances of 'moral rot' led to the disintegration of the United States. Given that, I dont see a bunch of guys in dresses doing to the United States what all of the above combined never did.

My political stance is more libertarian, if truth be told.

Do I think that mores and social constructs are changing in the United States? Yes. Do I blame Marxism for that change? No. Do I support those changes? Many no, some yes.

I cannot stand collectivism -- to me that is the big force in Marxism. I am *strongly* in favor of individualism and individual rights.

Huge 1st Amendment supporter, huge 2nd amendment. Im also big on pretty much the entire set of the Bill of Rights.

The 1st Amendment allows a huge amount of stuff -- including a lot of messages I do not like or subscribe to. But that is the power of the 1st -- individual expression at its finest, including the right to hold some pretty twisted thought, and the right to do a number of offensive things.

There is very little in progressivism that I support. But, I am very much a liberal in the very classic sense of the term liberal.

I think the moral stance of this country *is* declining -- no doubt. I dont blame Marxism for it. I am not a fan of progressivism, and think the closemindedness of the left has gone peak stupid (shutting down speech they dont like and the related).

But, to be honest, I see many on the Christian right as similarly 'shut down' albeit not as deep and fierce as from the progressive arena, and in different areas.

But as to the original question -- I think the prediction by Marx and social rot has been somewhat discounted by the historical record. I think that comment is a pat cliche to rally the troops to what the religious right in particular has identified as their now new social battleground.

And in this thread, to reiterate, my sole concern is lbertarian in nature. Part of the Tenn statute is borked to hell and gone. I dont have an issue about regulating the highly sexualized action of drag shows with respect to minors. I do have a big problem with a potential outcome of placing 'innocent' persons in harms way of the law.

This one kind of holds a special place for me. In my first year as an attorney, I represented a rap performer who had been targeted by Texas state officials for obscenity issues based on the lyrics.

The lyrics were absolutely crude, repulsive, and offensive -- but repulsive and offensive does not equal obscenity. Overall, not my cup of tea, not by a long shot. But he was one of those example 'innocents' I have been talking about.

I hope that answers your somewhat 'take it or leave it' question.

I dont think I am true 'conservative' -- I tend to vote that way. Most libertarian types choose that vote since there really are very few libertarian type candidates or politicians. That may make it enough to be on your 'savable' list, or I might be sent to the 'damn him' list.

(03-02-2023 05:57 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The fact that I think men wearing dresses are freaks does not make me a bigot. It does make you guys idiots though. You like men in dresses have at it. I don't, and you can't make me.

Probably you all wear dresses too. c'est la viec'est

And tanq, you can't insult me. I don't give a flying fk about your opinion. You're just an old rummy who has seen better days.

I think people forget that pushing to normalize things that are not remotely normal is harmful to kids and in the long run civilization.



Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Leftist freaks call anyone that doesn't believe in their perversions "a bigot". Ok then, I'm a bigot. Men are men and women are women and NOTHING you perverts do will ever change basic biology.

(03-02-2023 05:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 05:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Max --

to repeat my question from last night:

What is so fundamentally wrong with trying, at the outset, to minimize the vagueness that surrounds the language?

Is that really so bad to try and attempt to do so?

I have no objections to that, but every single law on the books has ambiguity, whether purposeful or not.

Ultimately, whether people will admit it or not, these disgusting events are happening and kids are involved. It needs to stop...immediately. If this law at least spurs that into action then I guess I can live with it.

Were you this outspoken about the DOJ using ambiguous laws against the sidewalk preacher whose house they raided with dozens of armed agents? The one who didn't do anything and the jury came back with a not-guilty verdict in like an hour?

In terms of that prosecution, the issue isnt one of the law being ambiguous, but of the DOJ seemingly inventing a structure of events that didnt happen as they said it did in the indictment.

I was ambivalent at the time of the arrest -- as more facts came out that contradicted the case as the DOJ laid out, I thought he should get out of it.

That case, for me, was more of an 'after I found out all the facts, I thought he should never have been charged'.

I dont think the abortion interference statute is problematic because of the language or structure -- but in that instance the major problem was that it was misused. When the facts came out after the arrest that the victim had sued the guy who was charged and it failed -- I think that is when I decided the direction I supported.

But no, to your question I did not automatically support the guy arrested at and when he was arrested.

I took heat here in supporting the manner of the arrest. Most law enforcement arrests involve big attention to officer safety -- and they should. The guy was charged with a violent crime (assault in the course of the interference), and I dont fault the arrest for taking the force precautions that they did.

After the fact of the arrest, it came out that the victim's attorney had volunteered a 'walk in' arrest, and again -- after the fact it turned out my support was incorrect, since I based it only on the issue of officer safety.

(03-02-2023 05:57 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The fact that I think men wearing dresses are freaks does not make me a bigot. It does make you guys idiots though. You like men in dresses have at it. I don't, and you can't make me.

Probably you all wear dresses too. c'est la viec'est

Nope, no dresses here. Once again you resort to pulling made up crap out of your ass and flinging it. Much like my 7 year old nephew tends to do. Quite the impressive display you do on a normal basis.

Quote:And tanq, you can't insult me. I don't give a flying fk about your opinion. You're just an old rummy who has seen better days.

Apparently you *do* give a flying fk, because not only do you respond to me, you actually go out of your way to initiate poo fling sessions. Lolz.

Toodles, My Friend.

(03-02-2023 06:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:25 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:00 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Keep in mind these are the same people who think mentioning Marxism and social rot in the same sentence is conflating two separate issues.

Keep in mind this dude doesnt seem to realize that that age old issue that he keeps repeating as a mantra didnt quite hold up so well in the light of history.

Damn commies/ hippies/ dope smokers/ faggots/ MLK supporters/ Jewboy race workers/ Lefty screen writers.

That same argument that you cling to was used to describe the activities of every single group listed above. Didnt work out the way ol' Marx said, did it? I guess it sounds cool when you intentionally ignore its application through the US history.

Applying it to guys wearing dresses reading to kids is really funny in that context. But please keep beating that drum.

Yep, guys in dresses reading to kids is the APOCALYPSE for our society. THE APOCALYPSE!!!!

Man if I wasnt actually in this channel, I'd think you all were creations in South Park.

Oh, there's another one to add to the list of Damn commies/ hippies/ dope smokers/ faggots/ MLK supporters/ Jewboy race workers/ Lefty screen writers --

It *should* be Damn commies/ hippies/ dope smokers/ faggots/ MLK supporters/ Jewboy race workers/ Lefty screen writer/ South Park/ guys in gingham dresses reading to kids --- all the downfall of everything we know.

This **** is CLASSIC!!!

If you dont think or believe there has been slow rot, that started decades ago, and slow infiltration of leftist / socialist / communist ideals into every aspect of American life then there is no hope for you.

Hambone mentioned you are a "conservative"

Your subsequent response to this post will prove that... or not.

Max, my comment is specifically to the continued use of Marx's comment about destroying a system by introducing moral rot at the core.

Since he made that quote, that quote has been used as a rationale to discredit screenwriters in Hollywood, hippies in the 60s and 70s, dope smokers, gays, MKL was accused of being Marxist in his quest for civil rights, the 'Jewboy' civil rights workers who went to the South in the bloody decade of the 60s....

None of these instances of 'moral rot' led to the disintegration of the United States. Given that, I dont see a bunch of guys in dresses doing to the United States what all of the above combined never did.

My political stance is more libertarian, if truth be told.

Do I think that mores and social constructs are changing in the United States? Yes. Do I blame Marxism for that change? No. Do I support those changes? Many no, some yes.

I cannot stand collectivism -- to me that is the big force in Marxism. I am *strongly* in favor of individualism and individual rights.

Huge 1st Amendment supporter, huge 2nd amendment. Im also big on pretty much the entire set of the Bill of Rights.

The 1st Amendment allows a huge amount of stuff -- including a lot of messages I do not like or subscribe to. But that is the power of the 1st -- individual expression at its finest, including the right to hold some pretty twisted thought, and the right to do a number of offensive things.

There is very little in progressivism that I support. But, I am very much a liberal in the very classic sense of the term liberal.

I think the moral stance of this country *is* declining -- no doubt. I dont blame Marxism for it. I am not a fan of progressivism, and think the closemindedness of the left has gone peak stupid (shutting down speech they dont like and the related).

But, to be honest, I see many on the Christian right as similarly 'shut down' albeit not as deep and fierce as from the progressive arena, and in different areas.

But as to the original question -- I think the prediction by Marx and social rot has been somewhat discounted by the historical record. I think that comment is a pat cliche to rally the troops to what the religious right in particular has identified as their now new social battleground.

And in this thread, to reiterate, my sole concern is lbertarian in nature. Part of the Tenn statute is borked to hell and gone. I dont have an issue about regulating the highly sexualized action of drag shows with respect to minors. I do have a big problem with a potential outcome of placing 'innocent' persons in harms way of the law.

This one kind of holds a special place for me. In my first year as an attorney, I represented a rap performer who had been targeted by Texas state officials for obscenity issues based on the lyrics.

The lyrics were absolutely crude, repulsive, and offensive -- but repulsive and offensive does not equal obscenity. Overall, not my cup of tea, not by a long shot. But he was one of those example 'innocents' I have been talking about.

I hope that answers your somewhat 'take it or leave it' question.

I dont think I am true 'conservative' -- I tend to vote that way. Most libertarian types choose that vote since there really are very few libertarian type candidates or politicians. That may make it enough to be on your 'savable' list, or I might be sent to the 'damn him' list.

All fair points, I haven't voted for an R or D in over 2 decades.

I do believe the roots of Marxism are at the core of the slide though... and it all starts with the kids and the education system from start to finish. Their ultimate Trojan horse.

One reason I'm passionate about kids and this thread has struck a nerve. They are not pets, they are not tools, they are not a means to an end, and they are not political pawns. They need protection from the evils of this world.

Protection from freaks like this guy

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

(03-02-2023 05:57 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The fact that I think men wearing dresses are freaks does not make me a bigot. It does make you guys idiots though. You like men in dresses have at it. I don't, and you can't make me.

Probably you all wear dresses too. c'est la viec'est

And tanq, you can't insult me. I don't give a flying fk about your opinion. You're just an old rummy who has seen better days.

You can defend someone’s right to do something even if you don’t like or wouldn’t participate in it. The ACLU has gone to bat for a lot of people they probably don’t agree with. A right is a right, even if you don’t agree with them, which you guys don’t seem to get.

People have the right to participate in society even if you don’t think they are wearing the clothing that matches their gender.

(03-02-2023 06:16 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Leftist freaks call anyone that doesn't believe in their perversions "a bigot". Ok then, I'm a bigot. Men are men and women are women and NOTHING you perverts do will ever change basic biology.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

(03-02-2023 06:45 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 05:57 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The fact that I think men wearing dresses are freaks does not make me a bigot. It does make you guys idiots though. You like men in dresses have at it. I don't, and you can't make me.

Probably you all wear dresses too. c'est la viec'est

And tanq, you can't insult me. I don't give a flying fk about your opinion. You're just an old rummy who has seen better days.

You can defend someone’s right to do something even if you don’t like or wouldn’t participate in it. The ACLU has gone to bat for a lot of people they probably don’t agree with. A right is a right, even if you don’t agree with them, which you guys don’t seem to get.

People have the right to participate in society even if you don’t think they are wearing the clothing that matches their gender.

Except for the pesky one about guns.... right

And btw, people can do what they want, 100%

But others can also make jokes about them, ridicule their behavior, ignore them in public, shame their behavior, etc etc

It doesn't mean people will just sit back and have it shoved down their throat.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

(03-02-2023 06:51 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 06:45 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 05:57 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The fact that I think men wearing dresses are freaks does not make me a bigot. It does make you guys idiots though. You like men in dresses have at it. I don't, and you can't make me.

Probably you all wear dresses too. c'est la viec'est

And tanq, you can't insult me. I don't give a flying fk about your opinion. You're just an old rummy who has seen better days.

You can defend someone’s right to do something even if you don’t like or wouldn’t participate in it. The ACLU has gone to bat for a lot of people they probably don’t agree with. A right is a right, even if you don’t agree with them, which you guys don’t seem to get.

People have the right to participate in society even if you don’t think they are wearing the clothing that matches their gender.

Except for the pesky one about guns.... right

And btw, people can do what they want, 100%

But others can also make jokes about them, ridicule their behavior, ignore them in public, shame their behavior, etc etc

It doesn't mean people will just sit back and have it shoved down their throat.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

I carry and owned NFA items before the recent “forced” NFA registration of pistol braces. I probably go through more ammo in a year than 98% of the people on here (5k to 6k shotshells a year).

I believe in all the amendments unlike some people here.

(03-02-2023 06:45 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  The ACLU has gone to bat for a lot of people they probably don’t agree with.

That is the 'used to be' case. ACLU would not take on many of the types of cases they used to especially involving speech.

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
Brandenburg v Ohio

Now there is a 'message content' test and a 'who is the client' test.

ACLU is a progressive shill these days.

(03-02-2023 06:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:25 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 04:00 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Keep in mind these are the same people who think mentioning Marxism and social rot in the same sentence is conflating two separate issues.

Keep in mind this dude doesnt seem to realize that that age old issue that he keeps repeating as a mantra didnt quite hold up so well in the light of history.

Damn commies/ hippies/ dope smokers/ faggots/ MLK supporters/ Jewboy race workers/ Lefty screen writers.

That same argument that you cling to was used to describe the activities of every single group listed above. Didnt work out the way ol' Marx said, did it? I guess it sounds cool when you intentionally ignore its application through the US history.

Applying it to guys wearing dresses reading to kids is really funny in that context. But please keep beating that drum.

Yep, guys in dresses reading to kids is the APOCALYPSE for our society. THE APOCALYPSE!!!!

Man if I wasnt actually in this channel, I'd think you all were creations in South Park.

Oh, there's another one to add to the list of Damn commies/ hippies/ dope smokers/ faggots/ MLK supporters/ Jewboy race workers/ Lefty screen writers --

It *should* be Damn commies/ hippies/ dope smokers/ faggots/ MLK supporters/ Jewboy race workers/ Lefty screen writer/ South Park/ guys in gingham dresses reading to kids --- all the downfall of everything we know.

This **** is CLASSIC!!!

If you dont think or believe there has been slow rot, that started decades ago, and slow infiltration of leftist / socialist / communist ideals into every aspect of American life then there is no hope for you.

Hambone mentioned you are a "conservative"

Your subsequent response to this post will prove that... or not.

Max, my comment is specifically to the continued use of Marx's comment about destroying a system by introducing moral rot at the core.

Since he made that quote, that quote has been used as a rationale to discredit screenwriters in Hollywood, hippies in the 60s and 70s, dope smokers, gays, MKL was accused of being Marxist in his quest for civil rights, the 'Jewboy' civil rights workers who went to the South in the bloody decade of the 60s....

None of these instances of 'moral rot' led to the disintegration of the United States. Given that, I dont see a bunch of guys in dresses doing to the United States what all of the above combined never did.

My political stance is more libertarian, if truth be told.

Do I think that mores and social constructs are changing in the United States? Yes. Do I blame Marxism for that change? No. Do I support those changes? Many no, some yes.

I cannot stand collectivism -- to me that is the big force in Marxism. I am *strongly* in favor of individualism and individual rights.

Huge 1st Amendment supporter, huge 2nd amendment. Im also big on pretty much the entire set of the Bill of Rights.

The 1st Amendment allows a huge amount of stuff -- including a lot of messages I do not like or subscribe to. But that is the power of the 1st -- individual expression at its finest, including the right to hold some pretty twisted thought, and the right to do a number of offensive things.

There is very little in progressivism that I support. But, I am very much a liberal in the very classic sense of the term liberal.

I think the moral stance of this country *is* declining -- no doubt. I dont blame Marxism for it. I am not a fan of progressivism, and think the closemindedness of the left has gone peak stupid (shutting down speech they dont like and the related).

But, to be honest, I see many on the Christian right as similarly 'shut down' albeit not as deep and fierce as from the progressive arena, and in different areas.

But as to the original question -- I think the prediction by Marx and social rot has been somewhat discounted by the historical record. I think that comment is a pat cliche to rally the troops to what the religious right in particular has identified as their now new social battleground.

And in this thread, to reiterate, my sole concern is lbertarian in nature. Part of the Tenn statute is borked to hell and gone. I dont have an issue about regulating the highly sexualized action of drag shows with respect to minors. I do have a big problem with a potential outcome of placing 'innocent' persons in harms way of the law.

This one kind of holds a special place for me. In my first year as an attorney, I represented a rap performer who had been targeted by Texas state officials for obscenity issues based on the lyrics.

The lyrics were absolutely crude, repulsive, and offensive -- but repulsive and offensive does not equal obscenity. Overall, not my cup of tea, not by a long shot. But he was one of those example 'innocents' I have been talking about.

I hope that answers your somewhat 'take it or leave it' question.

I dont think I am true 'conservative' -- I tend to vote that way. Most libertarian types choose that vote since there really are very few libertarian type candidates or politicians. That may make it enough to be on your 'savable' list, or I might be sent to the 'damn him' list.

If that's true then what is it that HAS led to the moral disintegration of the United States, genius? We started seeing the decline of morality in the 50's and 60's and it has continued apace since.

As to the 2nd bolded statement, what is that you DO think has caused the decline that you yourself admit is ongoing? Can you respond to this without writing a freaking book btw? Wordiness does not equal quality.

(03-02-2023 06:24 PM)maximus Wrote:  Protection from freaks like this guy

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

ANYONE who supports that freak is sick. That is beyond creepy, it's disturbed.

So let's hear it boys, tell us how cool this thing is. Come on Elvis, Tanq, let's hear you defend this nutcase. Where the bet welcher and Commie Tom, where's the halfhorse dude? Come on fruitcakes, tell us how fabulous this thing is. If watching that freak doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up then you're as sick as him.

(03-02-2023 06:51 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 06:45 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 05:57 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  The fact that I think men wearing dresses are freaks does not make me a bigot. It does make you guys idiots though. You like men in dresses have at it. I don't, and you can't make me.

Probably you all wear dresses too. c'est la viec'est

And tanq, you can't insult me. I don't give a flying fk about your opinion. You're just an old rummy who has seen better days.

You can defend someone’s right to do something even if you don’t like or wouldn’t participate in it. The ACLU has gone to bat for a lot of people they probably don’t agree with. A right is a right, even if you don’t agree with them, which you guys don’t seem to get.

People have the right to participate in society even if you don’t think they are wearing the clothing that matches their gender.

Except for the pesky one about guns.... right

And btw, people can do what they want, 100%

But others can also make jokes about them, ridicule their behavior, ignore them in public, shame their behavior, etc etc

It doesn't mean people will just sit back and have it shoved down their throat.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

The hell you say. These deviants can act, do and say whatever and however they wish and yes, you have to accept it and more, you have to support it. You do NOT have the right to disagree with them, you can't belittle, denigrate, bash, or otherwise malign those poor souls. What the hell is wrong with you Max??? /sarc