Republican from Texas anti-drag bill author dresses in drag

[Hardcore troubadour 16,063]

MDC sends his kid to a Catholic school that doesn’t Catholic. Lol. 

[RogerDodger 798]

44 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I was asking him, because as I posted earlier, the law makes the distinction about wearing clothing that's not stereotypical of your assigned gender at birth, which is bulls1t.

So you do know what it looks like, you just don't like it.  

When that's the reaction from lefties like you that's when you know you've got it right. 

[RogerDodger 798]

Why are the simplest things so hard for the wacko left?

Dressing however you want that's not provocative in a high school skit - OK

Mrs. Doubtfire - OK

Grown man with breasts wearing lingerie reading the tranny version of Jack and Jill John to children for story time. - NOT OK

[dogcows 1,279]

5 hours ago, RLLD said:

I cannot stop every parent from harming their kids.  If parents take their kids to a drag show, or a strip club, or into a drug den we as a society are not likely to stop them.

If schools in particular do this, then I have a problem.... so your red herring is now diffused, can we speak thoughtfully on the topic?

Yes. These shows should not be banned because of the first amendment. Period. You are dictating speech. There are already obscenity laws on the books, so if the idea is to protect kids from obscenity, the law is totally unnecessary.

[Hardcore troubadour 16,063]

5 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Yes. These shows should not be banned because of the first amendment. Period. You are dictating speech. There are already obscenity laws on the books, so if the idea is to protect kids from obscenity, the law is totally unnecessary.

Now do the 2a. That law is on the books, so no regulation of it is necessary.  

[dogcows 1,279]

3 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

So, from your POV, why would a parent take a child to a drag show? What are they "exposing" them to that is beneficial? 

 

I am not being facetious or trying to start an argument, I am genuinely curious what your view is on why a child would need to be there. 

I read some blog posts and news op-eds from parents of kids that take them to the shows. A common theme I see in those testimonials is the message: that it’s ok to be yourself, even if that self is quite different from the other kids.

Probably not for everybody’s kids, but I just don’t see the point in banning them just because some parents don’t approve. It’s easy... just don’t take your kids if you don’t like it.

[GutterBoy 2,900]

2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I read some blog posts and news op-eds from parents of kids that take them to the shows. A common theme I see in those testimonials is the message: that it’s ok to be yourself, even if that self is quite different from the other kids.

Probably not for everybody’s kids, but I just don’t see the point in banning them just because some parents don’t approve. It’s easy... just don’t take your kids if you don’t like it.

It's the same logic as "If you don't like abortion then don't get one", but some people like to judge others and tell other people how to live.  The also shroud this in "protect the kids" whilst they do nothing to actually "protect the kids".  These people are ass holes.

[RLLD 4,283]

33 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Yes. These shows should not be banned because of the first amendment. Period. You are dictating speech. There are already obscenity laws on the books, so if the idea is to protect kids from obscenity, the law is totally unnecessary.

I am not sure if you are being honest or snarkey here, given the propensity of cancellation that arises in our society today. 

[dogcows 1,279]

25 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I am not sure if you are being honest or snarkey here, given the propensity of cancellation that arises in our society today. 

What do you mean by cancellation? Private citizens deciding they don’t like somebody’s speech, and therefore refusing to listen to them? Private websites deciding they don’t want certain people saying certain things on their private platform, so they kick them off? Companies hearing offensive speech of an employee and firing them because it hurts the company’s image?

Those things are legal, and if you consider society overall, such “cancellation” is not necessarily a bad thing. It has always been the case that when people say offensive things, others shy away from them. In America, such people are legally allowed to continue to say whatever is disliked by others, but they run the risk of being shunned. Too bad, so sad, but it is legal.

That’s completely different than the government banning books or drag shows or other kinds of speech. We have a narrow exception for obscenity laws to protect kids. We should not expand such laws, because that impinges on free speech, which is protected by the Constitution.

[RLLD 4,283]

3 minutes ago, dogcows said:

What do you mean by cancellation? Private citizens deciding they don’t like somebody’s speech, and therefore refusing to listen to them? Private websites deciding they don’t want certain people saying certain things on their private platform, so they kick them off? Companies hearing offensive speech of an employee and firing them because it hurts the company’s image?

Those things are legal, and if you consider society overall, such “cancellation” is not necessarily a bad thing. It has always been the case that when people say offensive things, others shy away from them. In America, such people are legally allowed to continue to say whatever is disliked by others, but they run the risk of being shunned. Too bad, so sad, but it is legal.

That’s completely different than the government banning books or drag shows or other kinds of speech. We have a narrow exception for obscenity laws to protect kids. We should not expand such laws, because that impinges on free speech, which is protected by the Constitution.

I am hesitant to answer in part because you seem to be actively avoiding the actions against people like Jordon Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Dave Chapelle and many....many others.....

I am a little surprised that you are not aware of the first amendment rights of people being assailed, systemically....

[dogcows 1,279]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I am hesitant to answer in part because you seem to be actively avoiding the actions against people like Jordon Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Dave Chapelle and many....many others.....

I am a little surprised that you are not aware of the first amendment rights of people being assailed, systemically....

Did the government take action against any of the people you mentioned?

That’s the difference.

I’m not sure why you can’t seem to grasp the difference between people in society shunning somebody, and the government silencing them. It’s really not that difficult of a distinction to comprehend.

[crackattack 520]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

Yes. These shows should not be banned because of the first amendment. Period. You are dictating speech. There are already obscenity laws on the books, so if the idea is to protect kids from obscenity, the law is totally unnecessary.

While I personally think drag shows with children present is disgusting, and completely a parents decision, I think I agree with you here.

If drag shows are in violation of obscenity laws, then banning them seems redundant. I wouldn't take an 8 y/o to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but another parent might, and that's legal. 

Parental rights (within the law) should be just that. Their right to raise their children as they seem fit. 

[Hardcore troubadour 16,063]

37 minutes ago, crackattack said:

While I personally think drag shows with children present is disgusting, and completely a parents decision, I think I agree with you here.

If drag shows are in violation of obscenity laws, then banning them seems redundant. I wouldn't take an 8 y/o to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but another parent might, and that's legal. 

Parental rights (within the law) should be just that. Their right to raise their children as they seem fit. 

Know what I got for Christmas this year? It was a Fockin banner year at the Binder house. I got a carton of cigarettes. The old man grabbed me and said “smoke up johnny”.  

[Hardcore troubadour 16,063]

And while all of you are advocating for a parents right to raise a kid as they see fit, I hope you’re extending that to gender issues. Thanks for playing. 

[BuckSwope 654]

19 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

And while all of you are advocating for a parents right to raise a kid as they see fit, I hope you’re extending that to gender issues. Thanks for playing. 

Interesting example to bring up.   That goes both ways.   

You saying this means you want to be left alone to raise your kid how you want, and not have them introduced to this gender stuff.   Another person saying this might mean they don't want people on the right blocking them from seeking care for their kids with gender issues.   

[Hardcore troubadour 16,063]

1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

Interesting example to bring up.   That goes both ways.   

You saying this means you want to be left alone to raise your kid how you want, and not have them introduced to this gender stuff.   Another person saying this might mean they don't want people on the right blocking them from seeking care for their kids with gender issues.   

Hey, a parent not might want their kid to work towards transitioning. I’ve been told the parents get to raise their kid the way they want. What’s good for the freak is good for the flock. 

[BuckSwope 654]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Hey, a parent not might want their kid to work towards transitioning. I’ve been told the parents get to raise their kid the way they want. What’s good for the freak is good for the flock. 

Just saying that I would imagine parents on both sides of the gender debate are asking the other side to allow them to parent how they want.   I just thought it was an odd example to use because of that, that's all.  

[Hardcore troubadour 16,063]

2 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Just saying that I would imagine parents on both sides of the gender debate are asking the other side to allow them to parent how they want.   I just thought it was an odd example to use because of that, that's all.  

Well, one side of the gender debate thinks it’s ok not to inform parents that their kid is switching genders at school. 

[RLLD 4,283]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

Did the government take action against any of the people you mentioned?

That’s the difference.

I’m not sure why you can’t seem to grasp the difference between people in society shunning somebody, and the government silencing them. It’s really not that difficult of a distinction to comprehend.

Why bring the DOJ and Twitter into this.  Oh well, let me clarify, no one has the right to silence others, and right now there is a sincere effort among lefists to silence others.....some are in the government and some are not.

If it should arise, that you look around, and the people with whom you associate are seeking to cancel the voices of others....you are one the wrong side of history, as are your ideological forebears.

[zsasz 393]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Why bring the DOJ and Twitter into this.  Oh well, let me clarify, no one has the right to silence others, and right now there is a sincere effort among lefists to silence others.....some are in the government and some are not.

If it should arise, that you look around, and the people with whom you associate are seeking to cancel the voices of others....you are one the wrong side of history, as are your ideological forebears.

Noone SHOULD try to silence others....but Americans certainly have to the right to try and silence others. As to how much involvement those people get from the government is certainly up for debate.    

I'd imagine that there are very few Americans who do not feel that they shouldn't/don't have a right to silence others.....and that's an idea that permeates ALL facets of the political ideological spectrum.  

 

[dogcows 1,279]

31 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Why bring the DOJ and Twitter into this.  Oh well, let me clarify, no one has the right to silence others, and right now there is a sincere effort among lefists to silence others.....some are in the government and some are not.

If it should arise, that you look around, and the people with whom you associate are seeking to cancel the voices of others....you are one the wrong side of history, as are your ideological forebears.

To be clear, you (and others) dislike that certain people are being “silenced” by other people.

The government banning speech is illegal since it’s unconstitutional.

These issues should be treated separately. Instead, GOP politicians are engaging in the latter as a supposed response to the former. It seems to me it’s just an excuse for them to see how much they can censor before the courts weigh in and stop them.

And it’s no longer just teachers and drag queens being censored by the Florida government. A new proposed law would require any blogger who writes about the governor to register with the state. Welcome to the Soviet Union, everybody!

 

[Dizkneelande 1,136]

13 hours ago, dogcows said:

To be clear, you (and others) dislike that certain people are being “silenced” by other people.

The government banning speech is illegal since it’s unconstitutional.

These issues should be treated separately. Instead, GOP politicians are engaging in the latter as a supposed response to the former. It seems to me it’s just an excuse for them to see how much they can censor before the courts weigh in and stop them.

And it’s no longer just teachers and drag queens being censored by the Florida government. A new proposed law would require any blogger who writes about the governor to register with the state. Welcome to the Soviet Union, everybody!

 

Let’s dig through all the retarded bills lefties have filed that didn’t go anywhere. Here’s one of many -

Florida Democrat lawmaker Lauren Brook has filed a new law which would make it illegal to "allow a dog to extend its head or any other body part outside a motor vehicle window"

https://www.nhpr.org/2023-02-23/a-proposed-bill-in-florida-would-ban-dogs-from-hanging-their-heads-out-of-car-windows 

[RLLD 4,283]

15 hours ago, dogcows said:

To be clear, you (and others) dislike that certain people are being “silenced” by other people.

The government banning speech is illegal since it’s unconstitutional.

These issues should be treated separately. Instead, GOP politicians are engaging in the latter as a supposed response to the former. It seems to me it’s just an excuse for them to see how much they can censor before the courts weigh in and stop them.

And it’s no longer just teachers and drag queens being censored by the Florida government. A new proposed law would require any blogger who writes about the governor to register with the state. Welcome to the Soviet Union, everybody!

 

I find your characterization to be spurious. I think your entire position on this is disingenuous.

I see your bias from other topics evident here. Where an action meets your boss it is fine, where it does not you object.

I might encourage that something is right or wrong, regardless of politics…

[jerryskids 7,204]

Is the Left officially starting the "DeSantis is more Trumpier than Trump$#@!" campaign?

[jerryskids 7,204]

18 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

It's the same logic as "If you don't like abortion then don't get one", but some people like to judge others and tell other people how to live.  The also shroud this in "protect the kids" whilst they do nothing to actually "protect the kids".  These people are ass holes.

I don't want to sidetrack to abortion, but... this is really, really stupid.  It's like the women who say "you just want to control women's bodies!"  Umm, no.  We want to preserve life.  I want a society where children are precious, not one in which they are aborted because she has a trip to Cabo planned this summer and wants to wear that new bikini.

[MDC 8,119]

15 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I don't want to sidetrack to abortion, but... this is really, really stupid.  It's like the women who say "you just want to control women's bodies!"  Umm, no.  We want to preserve life.  I want a society where children are precious, not one in which they are aborted because she has a trip to Cabo planned this summer and wants to wear that new bikini.

About half of women who get abortions are unmarried and below poverty level. I don’t think many of them are going to Cabo.  

[porkbutt 897]

On 3/2/2023 at 9:23 AM, Hardcore troubadour said:

No one cared or spoke out about drag queens until they got kids involved. Liberals like to leave that part out. 

focking bingo. all that needs to be said. go be a freak in whatever dark corner of retard lib city you want. leave kids alone.

[jerryskids 7,204]

57 minutes ago, MDC said:

About half of women who get abortions are unmarried and below poverty level. I don’t think many of them are going to Cabo.  

So we can agree that the Cabo ones should be prevented, that's a start.   

[GutterBoy 2,900]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I don't want to sidetrack to abortion, but... this is really, really stupid.  It's like the women who say "you just want to control women's bodies!"  Umm, no.  We want to preserve life.  I want a society where children are precious, not one in which they are aborted because she has a trip to Cabo planned this summer and wants to wear that new bikini.

Tell me again how stupid it is for me to say that you judge people.

[MDC 8,119]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So we can agree that the Cabo ones should be prevented, that's a start.   

Can we agree that 12 year old girls who get impregnated by a priest should have access to an abortion? 

Long as we’re throwing out ridiculous outlier examples.  

[dogcows 1,279]

7 hours ago, RLLD said:

I find your characterization to be spurious. I think your entire position on this is disingenuous.

I see your bias from other topics evident here. Where an action meets your boss it is fine, where it does not you object.

I might encourage that something is right or wrong, regardless of politics…

There is a difference between government censorship and “cancel culture.” They are not the same thing. We can talk about them separately, but conflating them as equal is how we end up with Florida making bloggers register with the government and Texas forcing ISPs to block websites that have information about abortion on them.

Once and for all: Government censorship is expressly forbidden by the constitution. People being shunned by society is not.

[dogcows 1,279]

6 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I don't want to sidetrack to abortion, but... this is really, really stupid.  It's like the women who say "you just want to control women's bodies!"  Umm, no.  We want to preserve life.  I want a society where children are precious, not one in which they are aborted because she has a trip to Cabo planned this summer and wants to wear that new bikini.

That’s the world you want. It’s not the world most people want, and especially not what women want. And they’re the ones who it directly affects.

54% of people think abortion should be legal in most/all cases. 60% of women feel that way. Another 30% of people think it should be somewhat restricted, but generally available.Only 8% of people think it should be illegal with zero exceptions. And yet… in many states that is the law now.

[jerryskids 7,204]

6 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Tell me again how stupid it is for me to say that you judge people.

Guilty, I judge people who kill an unborn child for trips to Cabo.

[jerryskids 7,204]

6 hours ago, MDC said:

Can we agree that 12 year old girls who get impregnated by a priest should have access to an abortion? 

Long as we’re throwing out ridiculous outlier examples.  

Sure, deal.  Kids impregnated by priests can get abortions, those who want them for convenience cannot. 

[MDC 8,119]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Sure, deal.  Kids impregnated by priests can get abortions, those who want them to maintain their bikini bod before a Cabo vacation. 

Fixed and agreed!  

[jerryskids 7,204]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

That’s the world you want. It’s not the world most people want, and especially not what women want. And they’re the ones who it directly affects.

54% of people think abortion should be legal in most/all cases. 60% of women feel that way. Another 30% of people think it should be somewhat restricted, but generally available.Only 8% of people think it should be illegal with zero exceptions. And yet… in many states that is the law now.

I'm confident you don't want to do majority rules for all of the woke stuff the Left is trying to jam into our culture.

[jerryskids 7,204]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Fixed and agreed!  

Deal.  It's a start.   

[dogcows 1,279]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I'm confident you don't want to do majority rules for all of the woke stuff the Left is trying to jam into our culture.

So is there a secret cabal of wokesters that do this? What is their plan? Who are their leaders? What is their endgame?

And since the abortion genie is already out of the bottle, South Carolina’s legislature is considering a bill with the death sentence for women that get abortions… with no exceptions.

Pro-life, my azz. Again, almost nobody wants this level of abortion ban. But the GOP primary system is nominating the craziest of the crazy, and then they win among people accustomed to voting for Republicans. So you end up with book bans, the death penalty for abortion, bloggers needing to register with the state, etc. The GOP has to kick the crazies out of the party soon or they won’t have a party anymore.

 

[MDC 8,119]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Deal.  It's a start.   

We should come up with increasingly more plausible scenarios until we reach an impasse.  

[RLLD 4,283]

15 hours ago, dogcows said:

There is a difference between government censorship and “cancel culture.” They are not the same thing. We can talk about them separately, but conflating them as equal is how we end up with Florida making bloggers register with the government and Texas forcing ISPs to block websites that have information about abortion on them.

Once and for all: Government censorship is expressly forbidden by the constitution. People being shunned by society is not.

It is a difference without a distinction.

Pretending one is worse or better  is a flawed approach.  In EVERY instance where it arises we need to meet it, stand up to it, protect people from the government and the mob.