(03-04-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:08 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 09:32 PM)RuckleSt Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 08:57 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  The funniest part in all this is here you have two presumably educated mature men acting as if they hold some moral superiority over some others of us here when in actuality they are in the smallest of minorities here. Almost every one is laughing at them, no one takes them seriously and no one really cares anything about their opinions. And yet they've taken up 35 pages trying in vain to make points few here agree with. Their points have been refuted and rejected on every page and they are simply too dense to realize how stupid they appear to others so they keep bleating and blathering on.

This is an example of the psychology of a leftist. In order to worship at that altar an individual must be extremely narcissistic and fully incapable of ever admitting they are ever wrong (even in a nuanced way). Because of this, any differing opinion is not viewed as an assault on the idea being discussed but an assault on the individual. By disagreeing with a leftist they personally feel attacked because their entire identity is built around their ideology and the idea that they are never wrong. They are truly anti-intellectuals and thus not worth the effort of having any sort of serious discussion with.

I truly understand…. Especially when the response to ‘golly, the law could be tailored to be a little less overbroad’, and the response is spittle-flecked ‘groomer’.

When that is bleated constantly, it is pretty good evidence of a decent amount of ignorance. Thanks for further in the above. Bravo (I guess…..)

Kind of like a chat board version of the monkey/man opening scene in Kubrick’s 2001….

The funny thing is that you are apparently too stupid to even apparently denote the point being made before the chimp tribe response kicks in for you. And the funny thing is that you huff and puff about a point being 'refuted', when, to put it simply, I doubt you can even name what the point is. Just that it involves guys and dresses, and lordy be how anyone shouldnt do *anything* but think that that combination should simply be locked away.

The asinine kneejerk paroxysms of gnashing teeth and spittle are pretty much what one expects from a bad comedy. Please keep it up. Mention anything with 'guy' and 'dress' and watch all the pinheads pour out gnashing their red army ant jaws, ready to defend the hive. Lolz.

Yes, saying that the law is overbroad, and maybe think about making it quite not so vague *is*, by pretty much any means imaginable, morally superior to both: 'fk em and let them appeal', *and* 'well you are a groomer'. That much is blindingly obvious to even the most thick-headed. But apparently.....

I don't even know what the fuq you're trying to say in that rant.

Im sure you dont.

Quote:Oh, and the point is that the people of TN now have a law which protects children from exposure to indecency and perversion hiding under the guise of "art". It doesn't matter what you or anyone else not from TN think about the law itself, whether it's too broad or not broad enough, whether its language is too vague or too specific, regardless of any aspect of the law you have no say so about it, yet here you remain, bleating on and on incoherently. STFU and sit down.

Relatedly, I am absolutely sure that you dont give a flip about whether the law is broad or vague. Kind of rolls with you I would guess from the rest of your tone most of the time.

I should give you positive rep points for brevity for once.

Edit: As to how I feel about the law being too broad or vague? I prefer that over it being so specific and pointed that it allows continuation of the very behaviors it seeks to prohibit to operate just outside the scope of the law.

(03-04-2023 10:37 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:08 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 09:32 PM)RuckleSt Wrote:  This is an example of the psychology of a leftist. In order to worship at that altar an individual must be extremely narcissistic and fully incapable of ever admitting they are ever wrong (even in a nuanced way). Because of this, any differing opinion is not viewed as an assault on the idea being discussed but an assault on the individual. By disagreeing with a leftist they personally feel attacked because their entire identity is built around their ideology and the idea that they are never wrong. They are truly anti-intellectuals and thus not worth the effort of having any sort of serious discussion with.

I truly understand…. Especially when the response to ‘golly, the law could be tailored to be a little less overbroad’, and the response is spittle-flecked ‘groomer’.

When that is bleated constantly, it is pretty good evidence of a decent amount of ignorance. Thanks for further in the above. Bravo (I guess…..)

Kind of like a chat board version of the monkey/man opening scene in Kubrick’s 2001….

The funny thing is that you are apparently too stupid to even apparently denote the point being made before the chimp tribe response kicks in for you. And the funny thing is that you huff and puff about a point being 'refuted', when, to put it simply, I doubt you can even name what the point is. Just that it involves guys and dresses, and lordy be how anyone shouldnt do *anything* but think that that combination should simply be locked away.

The asinine kneejerk paroxysms of gnashing teeth and spittle are pretty much what one expects from a bad comedy. Please keep it up. Mention anything with 'guy' and 'dress' and watch all the pinheads pour out gnashing their red army ant jaws, ready to defend the hive. Lolz.

Yes, saying that the law is overbroad, and maybe think about making it quite not so vague *is*, by pretty much any means imaginable, morally superior to both: 'fk em and let them appeal', *and* 'well you are a groomer'. That much is blindingly obvious to even the most thick-headed. But apparently.....

I don't even know what the fuq you're trying to say in that rant.

Im sure you dont.

Quote:Oh, and the point is that the people of TN now have a law which protects children from exposure to indecency and perversion hiding under the guise of "art". It doesn't matter what you or anyone else not from TN think about the law itself, whether it's too broad or not broad enough, whether its language is too vague or too specific, regardless of any aspect of the law you have no say so about it, yet here you remain, bleating on and on incoherently. STFU and sit down.

Relatedly, I am absolutely sure that you dont give a flip about whether the law is broad or vague. Kind of rolls with you I would guess from the rest of your tone most of the time.

I should give you positive rep points for brevity for once.

Edit: As to how I feel about the law being too broad or vague? I prefer that over it being so specific and pointed that it allows continuation of the very behaviors it seeks to prohibit to operate just outside the scope of the law.

Funny that is the point I have been making for the better part of a while. All I got from you is your kneejerk 'groomer' **** and the items above. For bringing up that point.

Based on your final point, no reason to type out your spittle laced comment directly preceding -- but you do. Brilliant.... (I guess...)

Yes how dare anyone not you have a point of view -- and you attack it (actually you *dont* attack it, you attack the speaker mainly) even if you agree with it. Good grief, sparky.... lolz.

And if you read Elvis' points, or JDTulane's points -- that is the case as well.

It is like you are simply hard wired like a donkey to automatically kick at a certain preset stimulus. Krist on fing cracker.

Groomer

From just last night:

Quote:when in actuality they are in the smallest of minorities here.

Quote:trying in vain to make points few here agree with.

Quote:Their points have been refuted and rejected on every page

Now you say you agree with my point. And Elvis'. And JDTulane's

What a retard. (these are 'should be' warning points that are more than worth it given the above)

(03-04-2023 11:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:37 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:08 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I truly understand…. Especially when the response to ‘golly, the law could be tailored to be a little less overbroad’, and the response is spittle-flecked ‘groomer’.

When that is bleated constantly, it is pretty good evidence of a decent amount of ignorance. Thanks for further in the above. Bravo (I guess…..)

Kind of like a chat board version of the monkey/man opening scene in Kubrick’s 2001….

The funny thing is that you are apparently too stupid to even apparently denote the point being made before the chimp tribe response kicks in for you. And the funny thing is that you huff and puff about a point being 'refuted', when, to put it simply, I doubt you can even name what the point is. Just that it involves guys and dresses, and lordy be how anyone shouldnt do *anything* but think that that combination should simply be locked away.

The asinine kneejerk paroxysms of gnashing teeth and spittle are pretty much what one expects from a bad comedy. Please keep it up. Mention anything with 'guy' and 'dress' and watch all the pinheads pour out gnashing their red army ant jaws, ready to defend the hive. Lolz.

Yes, saying that the law is overbroad, and maybe think about making it quite not so vague *is*, by pretty much any means imaginable, morally superior to both: 'fk em and let them appeal', *and* 'well you are a groomer'. That much is blindingly obvious to even the most thick-headed. But apparently.....

I don't even know what the fuq you're trying to say in that rant.

Im sure you dont.

Quote:Oh, and the point is that the people of TN now have a law which protects children from exposure to indecency and perversion hiding under the guise of "art". It doesn't matter what you or anyone else not from TN think about the law itself, whether it's too broad or not broad enough, whether its language is too vague or too specific, regardless of any aspect of the law you have no say so about it, yet here you remain, bleating on and on incoherently. STFU and sit down.

Relatedly, I am absolutely sure that you dont give a flip about whether the law is broad or vague. Kind of rolls with you I would guess from the rest of your tone most of the time.

I should give you positive rep points for brevity for once.

Edit: As to how I feel about the law being too broad or vague? I prefer that over it being so specific and pointed that it allows continuation of the very behaviors it seeks to prohibit to operate just outside the scope of the law.

Funny that is the point I have been making for the better part of a while. All I got from you is your kneejerk 'groomer' **** and the items above. For bringing up that point.

Based on your final point, no reason to type out your spittle laced comment directly preceding -- but you do. Brilliant.... (I guess...)

Yes how dare anyone not you have a point of view -- and you attack it (actually you *dont* attack it, you attack the speaker mainly) even if you agree with it. Good grief, sparky.... lolz.

And if you read Elvis' points, or JDTulane's points -- that is the case as well.

It is like you are simply hard wired like a donkey to automatically kick at a certain preset stimulus. Krist on fing cracker.

I have yet to utter the word groomer in anything related to you. As to the rest, it's nonsensical. Spittle laced? LOL, such projection.

(03-04-2023 11:22 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I have yet to utter the word groomer in anything related to you. As to the rest, it's nonsensical. Spittle laced? LOL, such projection.

I know right? I'm the one keeps calling him a groomer. I guess we look alike.

(03-04-2023 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  From just last night:

Quote:when in actuality they are in the smallest of minorities here.

Quote:trying in vain to make points few here agree with.

Quote:Their points have been refuted and rejected on every page

Now you say you agree with my point. And Elvis'. And JDTulane's

What a retard. (these are 'should be' warning points that are more than worth it given the above)

Da fuq? Reading really is fundamental. How you arrived at that conclusion is anyone's guess.

I shouldn't have to explain this but "their", as used in that sentence, refers to you and your butt bumpin buddies.

(03-04-2023 11:27 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 11:22 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I have yet to utter the word groomer in anything related to you. As to the rest, it's nonsensical. Spittle laced? LOL, such projection.

I know right? I'm the one keeps calling him a groomer. I guess we look alike.

Man, for your sake I hope not!

(03-04-2023 11:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:37 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:08 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I truly understand…. Especially when the response to ‘golly, the law could be tailored to be a little less overbroad’, and the response is spittle-flecked ‘groomer’.

When that is bleated constantly, it is pretty good evidence of a decent amount of ignorance. Thanks for further in the above. Bravo (I guess…..)

Kind of like a chat board version of the monkey/man opening scene in Kubrick’s 2001….

The funny thing is that you are apparently too stupid to even apparently denote the point being made before the chimp tribe response kicks in for you. And the funny thing is that you huff and puff about a point being 'refuted', when, to put it simply, I doubt you can even name what the point is. Just that it involves guys and dresses, and lordy be how anyone shouldnt do *anything* but think that that combination should simply be locked away.

The asinine kneejerk paroxysms of gnashing teeth and spittle are pretty much what one expects from a bad comedy. Please keep it up. Mention anything with 'guy' and 'dress' and watch all the pinheads pour out gnashing their red army ant jaws, ready to defend the hive. Lolz.

Yes, saying that the law is overbroad, and maybe think about making it quite not so vague *is*, by pretty much any means imaginable, morally superior to both: 'fk em and let them appeal', *and* 'well you are a groomer'. That much is blindingly obvious to even the most thick-headed. But apparently.....

I don't even know what the fuq you're trying to say in that rant.

Im sure you dont.

Quote:Oh, and the point is that the people of TN now have a law which protects children from exposure to indecency and perversion hiding under the guise of "art". It doesn't matter what you or anyone else not from TN think about the law itself, whether it's too broad or not broad enough, whether its language is too vague or too specific, regardless of any aspect of the law you have no say so about it, yet here you remain, bleating on and on incoherently. STFU and sit down.

Relatedly, I am absolutely sure that you dont give a flip about whether the law is broad or vague. Kind of rolls with you I would guess from the rest of your tone most of the time.

I should give you positive rep points for brevity for once.

Edit: As to how I feel about the law being too broad or vague? I prefer that over it being so specific and pointed that it allows continuation of the very behaviors it seeks to prohibit to operate just outside the scope of the law.

Funny that is the point I have been making for the better part of a while. All I got from you is your kneejerk 'groomer' **** and the items above. For bringing up that point.

Based on your final point, no reason to type out your spittle laced comment directly preceding -- but you do. Brilliant.... (I guess...)

Yes how dare anyone not you have a point of view -- and you attack it (actually you *dont* attack it, you attack the speaker mainly) even if you agree with it. Good grief, sparky.... lolz.

And if you read Elvis' points, or JDTulane's points -- that is the case as well.

It is like you are simply hard wired like a donkey to automatically kick at a certain preset stimulus. Krist on fing cracker.

Say what?? You are arguing that the law is TOO broad and vague, I just explicitly told you that I would prefer it being too broad and vague over it being too specific or pointed, and you call that me agreeing with you?

Dude...

You're flailing and you know it. Best you just stop now.

(03-04-2023 11:29 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 11:27 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 11:22 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I have yet to utter the word groomer in anything related to you. As to the rest, it's nonsensical. Spittle laced? LOL, such projection.

I know right? I'm the one keeps calling him a groomer. I guess we look alike.

Man, for your sake I hope not!

Drink enough gin and everybody starts looking like everybody else.

(03-04-2023 11:33 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 11:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:37 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:08 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I don't even know what the fuq you're trying to say in that rant.

Im sure you dont.

Quote:Oh, and the point is that the people of TN now have a law which protects children from exposure to indecency and perversion hiding under the guise of "art". It doesn't matter what you or anyone else not from TN think about the law itself, whether it's too broad or not broad enough, whether its language is too vague or too specific, regardless of any aspect of the law you have no say so about it, yet here you remain, bleating on and on incoherently. STFU and sit down.

Relatedly, I am absolutely sure that you dont give a flip about whether the law is broad or vague. Kind of rolls with you I would guess from the rest of your tone most of the time.

I should give you positive rep points for brevity for once.

Edit: As to how I feel about the law being too broad or vague? I prefer that over it being so specific and pointed that it allows continuation of the very behaviors it seeks to prohibit to operate just outside the scope of the law.

Funny that is the point I have been making for the better part of a while. All I got from you is your kneejerk 'groomer' **** and the items above. For bringing up that point.

Based on your final point, no reason to type out your spittle laced comment directly preceding -- but you do. Brilliant.... (I guess...)

Yes how dare anyone not you have a point of view -- and you attack it (actually you *dont* attack it, you attack the speaker mainly) even if you agree with it. Good grief, sparky.... lolz.

And if you read Elvis' points, or JDTulane's points -- that is the case as well.

It is like you are simply hard wired like a donkey to automatically kick at a certain preset stimulus. Krist on fing cracker.

Say what?? You are arguing that the law is TOO broad and vague, I just explicitly told you that I would prefer it being too broad and vague over it being too specific or pointed, and you call that me agreeing with you?

Dude...

You're flailing and you know it. Best you just stop now.

Yep I misread your sentence. Mea culpa.

You prefer overbroad and vague laws. Sounds fun. More of what I expect from you. You had me worried that you werent as ignorant as I thought previously.

I dont think the idea of generally not being for overbroad and vague laws has ever really been 'refuted' (except amongst the densest). yes, how *dare* someone be able to read a law, and act within it. As close as possible.

I guess when the subject is any form of crossdressing activity, you are so ill at ease with the subject that it is better to stamp it out completely as opposed to having a readable law. That level of ignorance and bigotry is some of which I havent seen in a long time.

Thank you for being somewhat upfront about it.

(03-04-2023 11:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 11:33 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 11:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:37 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im sure you dont.


Relatedly, I am absolutely sure that you dont give a flip about whether the law is broad or vague. Kind of rolls with you I would guess from the rest of your tone most of the time.

I should give you positive rep points for brevity for once.

Edit: As to how I feel about the law being too broad or vague? I prefer that over it being so specific and pointed that it allows continuation of the very behaviors it seeks to prohibit to operate just outside the scope of the law.

Funny that is the point I have been making for the better part of a while. All I got from you is your kneejerk 'groomer' **** and the items above. For bringing up that point.

Based on your final point, no reason to type out your spittle laced comment directly preceding -- but you do. Brilliant.... (I guess...)

Yes how dare anyone not you have a point of view -- and you attack it (actually you *dont* attack it, you attack the speaker mainly) even if you agree with it. Good grief, sparky.... lolz.

And if you read Elvis' points, or JDTulane's points -- that is the case as well.

It is like you are simply hard wired like a donkey to automatically kick at a certain preset stimulus. Krist on fing cracker.

Say what?? You are arguing that the law is TOO broad and vague, I just explicitly told you that I would prefer it being too broad and vague over it being too specific or pointed, and you call that me agreeing with you?

Dude...

You're flailing and you know it. Best you just stop now.

Yep I misread your sentence. Mea culpa.

You prefer overbroad and vague laws. Sounds fun. More of what I expect from you. You had me worried that you werent as ignorant as I thought previously.

Again, reading is fundamental. I said I prefer them over the stated alternative. Nuance isn't your forte'. You come at things like a sledgehammer but the effect is more like delivering a blow with a foam rubber mallet. Seriously, go sit down.

You prefer overbroad and vague laws. Over non-overbroad laws that are non-vague, and designed to give notice. Quite the distinction. Nobel prize level distinction.

Anymore deep world changing distinctions?

Hint: Its either overbroad and vague, or not. One that gives specific notice, or not. One that punishes otherwise protected behavior, or not. Kind of a base level, high school level civics thing. But please keep flapping those wings and jumping up and down.

I read fine, Chuckles. The problem is that you apparently dont know what the flip you are talking about in this particular subject. Again, 'high school level civics thing'.

Since you have discovered a mid level area in the law that has been previously unknown until now -- try this number: Telephone: 202-479-3000

They may need some help with getting their arms around this new discovery.

Youll be famous !!! Awesome. High five for TBE. I can say I knew him in chat before he became world famous for this discovery of his about the concept of 'overbroad and vague'.

Are you going to name it the TigerBlue level of law interpretation? Its stunning that those folks at that number have never heard of that thing that is *not* the 'either / or' that it has been part and parcel of the foundation of our system of law.

And, maybe you will get to teach this in a HS civics class. To replace that concept in all of the other HS civics classes.

Demented pedo freaks wanna groom kids and the biggest concern for some is the vagueness of the law.

For fricks sake.

(03-04-2023 12:39 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Demented pedo freaks wanna groom kids and the biggest concern for some is the vagueness of the law.

For fricks sake.

He keeps conveniently missing that point

(03-04-2023 11:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:37 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 10:08 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 10:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I truly understand…. Especially when the response to ‘golly, the law could be tailored to be a little less overbroad’, and the response is spittle-flecked ‘groomer’.

When that is bleated constantly, it is pretty good evidence of a decent amount of ignorance. Thanks for further in the above. Bravo (I guess…..)

Kind of like a chat board version of the monkey/man opening scene in Kubrick’s 2001….

The funny thing is that you are apparently too stupid to even apparently denote the point being made before the chimp tribe response kicks in for you. And the funny thing is that you huff and puff about a point being 'refuted', when, to put it simply, I doubt you can even name what the point is. Just that it involves guys and dresses, and lordy be how anyone shouldnt do *anything* but think that that combination should simply be locked away.

The asinine kneejerk paroxysms of gnashing teeth and spittle are pretty much what one expects from a bad comedy. Please keep it up. Mention anything with 'guy' and 'dress' and watch all the pinheads pour out gnashing their red army ant jaws, ready to defend the hive. Lolz.

Yes, saying that the law is overbroad, and maybe think about making it quite not so vague *is*, by pretty much any means imaginable, morally superior to both: 'fk em and let them appeal', *and* 'well you are a groomer'. That much is blindingly obvious to even the most thick-headed. But apparently.....

I don't even know what the fuq you're trying to say in that rant.

Im sure you dont.

Quote:Oh, and the point is that the people of TN now have a law which protects children from exposure to indecency and perversion hiding under the guise of "art". It doesn't matter what you or anyone else not from TN think about the law itself, whether it's too broad or not broad enough, whether its language is too vague or too specific, regardless of any aspect of the law you have no say so about it, yet here you remain, bleating on and on incoherently. STFU and sit down.

Relatedly, I am absolutely sure that you dont give a flip about whether the law is broad or vague. Kind of rolls with you I would guess from the rest of your tone most of the time.

I should give you positive rep points for brevity for once.

Edit: As to how I feel about the law being too broad or vague? I prefer that over it being so specific and pointed that it allows continuation of the very behaviors it seeks to prohibit to operate just outside the scope of the law.

Funny that is the point I have been making for the better part of a while. All I got from you is your kneejerk 'groomer' **** and the items above. For bringing up that point.

Based on your final point, no reason to type out your spittle laced comment directly preceding -- but you do. Brilliant.... (I guess...)

Yes how dare anyone not you have a point of view -- and you attack it (actually you *dont* attack it, you attack the speaker mainly) even if you agree with it. Good grief, sparky.... lolz.

And if you read Elvis' points, or JDTulane's points -- that is the case as well.

It is like you are simply hard wired like a donkey to automatically kick at a certain preset stimulus. Krist on fing cracker.

"Yes how dare anyone not you have a point of view -- and you attack it (actually you *dont* attack it, you attack the speaker mainly) even if you agree with it. Good grief, sparky.... lolz."

That's pure Gold coming from you.

(03-04-2023 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Since you have discovered a mid level area in the law that has been previously unknown until now -- try this number: Telephone: 202-479-3000

They may need some help with getting their arms around this new discovery.

Youll be famous !!! Awesome. High five for TBE. I can say I knew him in chat before he became world famous for this discovery of his about the concept of 'overbroad and vague'.

Are you going to name it the TigerBlue level of law interpretation? Its stunning that those folks at that number have never heard of that thing that is *not* the 'either / or' that it has been part and parcel of the foundation of our system of law.

And, maybe you will get to teach this in a HS civics class. To replace that concept in all of the other HS civics classes.

I'm not a lawyer nor am I pretending to be, and I am not arguing the finer points of any law.

Until the last few exchanges my only concern about the law is that it prohibits the exploitation of children and it prevents them being exposed to what society by and large considers indecent exposure and lewd and lascivious behavior. You on the other hand, in the interest of protecting a miniscule and deranged segment of society, appear not to care about the safety and welfare of innocent children.

Do you have children?

(03-04-2023 01:33 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Since you have discovered a mid level area in the law that has been previously unknown until now -- try this number: Telephone: 202-479-3000

They may need some help with getting their arms around this new discovery.

Youll be famous !!! Awesome. High five for TBE. I can say I knew him in chat before he became world famous for this discovery of his about the concept of 'overbroad and vague'.

Are you going to name it the TigerBlue level of law interpretation? Its stunning that those folks at that number have never heard of that thing that is *not* the 'either / or' that it has been part and parcel of the foundation of our system of law.

And, maybe you will get to teach this in a HS civics class. To replace that concept in all of the other HS civics classes.

I'm not a lawyer nor am I pretending to be, and I am not arguing the finer points of any law.

Until the last few exchanges my only concern about the law is that it prohibits the exploitation of children and it prevents them being exposed to what society by and large considers indecent exposure and lewd and lascivious behavior. You on the other hand, in the interest of protecting a miniscule and deranged segment of society, appear not to care about the safety and welfare of innocent children.

Do you have children?

They could pass a gun ban and collect and crush all firearms, enforced by a house to house search. It would reduce the number of school shootings and protect children. There are people who would endorse that plan because it protects children and prohibits gun violence.

Now I wouldn’t agree with it, but people who support that plan would make the same type of arguments you are making now.

(03-04-2023 01:33 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-04-2023 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Since you have discovered a mid level area in the law that has been previously unknown until now -- try this number: Telephone: 202-479-3000

They may need some help with getting their arms around this new discovery.

Youll be famous !!! Awesome. High five for TBE. I can say I knew him in chat before he became world famous for this discovery of his about the concept of 'overbroad and vague'.

Are you going to name it the TigerBlue level of law interpretation? Its stunning that those folks at that number have never heard of that thing that is *not* the 'either / or' that it has been part and parcel of the foundation of our system of law.

And, maybe you will get to teach this in a HS civics class. To replace that concept in all of the other HS civics classes.

I'm not a lawyer nor am I pretending to be, and I am not arguing the finer points of any law.

Fair enough. Ill retract the crticism.

Do you understand the issue of "overbroad and vague" and how there arent degrees of that? If you say yes, then we just move on from that.

Until the last few exchanges my only concern about the law is that it prohibits the exploitation of children and it prevents them being exposed to what society by and large considers indecent exposure and lewd and lascivious behavior. [/quote]

First, you said 'until the last few exchanges my only concern". Do you now have others?

As to the bolded, I dont think anyone here begrudges that sentiment. No one has opposed that in general, or as an overarching end result.

The issue is for at least 3 of us is *how* that result is implemented. Criminy, even #s identifies that avenue as potentially an overbroad means -- and in fact criticizes the Republicans for going down that path.

I dont like overbroad and/or vague laws for *any* subject. Whether it be men in sexy drag stuff making lewd stuff in front of children --- *or* something else like gun restrictions.

Progressives have made a field day in trying to get expansive as **** results in overbroad and vague laws. Its a load of crap there.

In that instance all it takes is one ignorant progressive peckerhead law enforcement official to achieve what *their* heart desires in gun restriction, and to the detriment of otherwise innocent activities that the ignorant progressive peckerhead thinks should be the case for punishment.

My stance is that the form to regulate the actions you want regulated (and to which no one really disagrees here that they shouldnt. And do it in a way that a peckerhead ignorant right wing jerk wishes to achieve to the potential detriment of otherwise legal activity.

Quote: You on the other hand, in the interest of protecting a miniscule and deranged segment of society, appear not to care about the safety and welfare of innocent children.

Nice strawman. Just because I disagree on *how* to achieve that result doesnt make me not want that result. Please stop with the really shallow strawman stuff. Ill keep it to the friendly tone there.

Im sure you are happy that the pistol brace rule was ruled 'arbitrary' and 'overbroad' recently. I guess you like those types of laws and rules being challenged for that in one instance, then go off and support them fully in others. Yippee.