LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:31 pm

100% watched that as a kid. Loved Korman and Tim Conway.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:39 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 4:31 pm

100% watched that as a kid. Loved Korman and Tim Conway.

I am sure it made you want to be a drag queen or gay!

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:08 pm

Don't forget Bugs Bunny in drag.....

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:14 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:10 pm So its all about dress...that's how you going to spin this? Cmon man. For the record, those links MD posts, should also be against some sort of law. Fukcing with impressionable minds of children should be off the table.

The dress is part of it, my man. Especially given that you can't wear a skirt that short in most public schools in America.


You think that girls....underaged girls........ dressing in next to nothing, makeup just caked on....... to dance provocatively and "cheer" for the boys to do something isn't sending a message to impressionable kids? Seriously?

Why aren't they out there in vintage 80's baggy Adidas sweats? Did this seriously never occur to you?

So....I take it you've figured out that drag queens reading to kids isn't a big deal?

And that you maybe ought to think about dressing up 14 year old girls in "skirts' to perform in front of kids....and grown adults.....in skirts that would get them thrown out of class in most public schools ain't all that great of an idea?

Do you care that children see sexualized underaged girls perform, or not?

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:53 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:14 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:10 pm So its all about dress...that's how you going to spin this? Cmon man. For the record, those links MD posts, should also be against some sort of law. Fukcing with impressionable minds of children should be off the table.

The dress is part of it, my man. Especially given that you can't wear a skirt that short in most public schools in America.


You think that girls....underaged girls........ dressing in next to nothing, makeup just caked on....... to dance provocatively and "cheer" for the boys to do something isn't sending a message to impressionable kids? Seriously?

Why aren't they out there in vintage 80's baggy Adidas sweats? Did this seriously never occur to you?

So....I take it you've figured out that drag queens reading to kids isn't a big deal?

And that you maybe ought to think about dressing up 14 year old girls in "skirts' to perform in front of kids....and grown adults.....skirt that would get them thrown out of class in most public schools ain't all that great of an idea?

Do you care that children see sexualized underaged girls perform, or not?

I never once claimed or hinted that people dressed in drag should not read to kids, never.

My original argument, that got spun into your vortex, was about all the fussing that many here were making about the Texas law and lewd/sexualized dancing. Which I believed there was common ground about genitalia being exposed.

Slow day at the office?

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm I never once claimed or hinted that people dressed in drag should not read to kids, never.

That's great. That's not what's in the Texas law..and again, it's obvious you didn't read the law.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm My original argument, that got spun into your vortex, was about all the fussing that many here were making about the Texas law and lewd/sexualized dancing. Which I believed there was common ground about genitalia being exposed.

I've learned over the years that "the vortex" means that the other poster is stuck, can't argue their way out of something, so they pretend that I'm the problem instead of calmly making their case.

Tell you what: have a look at the law. Read it carefully this time. I'll give you $1,000 if the law ONLY applies to dancing.

And you give me $1,000 dollars if that's not all that's illegal. Oh, and you come back and apologize for accusing me of spin and "vortex", when instead, I'm calmly trying to tell you that the law doesn't do what you think it does....and is why you shouldn't support it. Which is the point to this whole conversation.

Deal?

You can EASILY call someone in drag reading to kids "a performance". Hence, illegal in TX. Because guess who gets to make the call as to whether it's "a performance", and whether the reader is "lascivious". That's right: the Texas far right.

The law you THINK was passed? I support that. The problem, as I pointed out.....under 18 year old public cheerleading performances would be banned from public schools. You good with that? I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they were banned.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm Slow day at the office?

Good day at the office, thanks for asking!



https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/b ... 04378I.pdf

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:36 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm I never once claimed or hinted that people dressed in drag should not read to kids, never.

That's great. That's not what's in the Texas law..and again, it's obvious you didn't read the law.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm My original argument, that got spun into your vortex, was about all the fussing that many here were making about the Texas law and lewd/sexualized dancing. Which I believed there was common ground about genitalia being exposed.

I've learned over the years that "the vortex" means that the other poster is stuck, can't argue their way out of something, so they pretend that I'm the problem instead of calmly making their case.

Tell you what: have a look at the law. Read it carefully this time. I'll give you $1,000 if the law ONLY applies to dancing.

And you give me $1,000 dollars if that's not all that's illegal. Oh, and you come back and apologize for accusing me of spin and "vortex", when instead, I'm calmly trying to tell you that the law doesn't do what you think it does....and is why you shouldn't support it. Which is the point to this whole conversation.

Deal?

You can EASILY call someone in drag reading to kids "a performance". Hence, illegal in TX. Because guess who gets to make the call as to whether it's "a performance", and whether the reader is "lascivious". That's right: the Texas far right.

The law you THINK was passed? I support that. The problem, as I pointed out.....under 18 year old public cheerleading performances would be banned from public schools. You good with that? I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they were banned.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:13 pm Slow day at the office?

Good day at the office, thanks for asking!



https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/b ... 04378I.pdf

your vortex Is right there in front of you, and you are so stubborn you don’t even see it. YOU, implied I was against drags reading to kids(never was and never said it), and your reply “that’s great” pretty disingenuous on your part and what I call a vortex. See how that works? You do it with OS as well, on the regular.

I read it the day I posted it and know full well that in America we use discretion and jurors, to help settle nuanced legal disputes….seems you disagree and are of the mindset, as usual, that everything binary. Not me, I can the entire intent was to protect kids….full stop.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:51 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:08 pm

Don't forget Bugs Bunny in drag.....

Classic.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:08 pm your vortex Is right there in front of you, and you are so stubborn you don’t even see it. YOU, implied I was against drags reading to kids(never was and never said it), and your reply “that’s great” pretty disingenuous on your part and what I call a vortex. See how that works? You do it with OS as well, on the regular.

I read it the day I posted it and know full well that in America we use discretion and jurors, to help settle nuanced legal disputes….seems you disagree and are of the mindset, as usual, that everything binary. Not me, I can the entire intent was to protect kids….full stop.

I'm not saying everything is binary.

You're acting like a lawmaker slipped on a banana peel and "accidentally" wrote a law that is intentionally vague, and that calls out cross dressing.


You are STILL here, claiming either:

a. this law is about protecting kids from an overaged, vulgar as can possibly be drag. If that's what you're selling, you're wrong.

or B. you understand that this law ropes in EVERYTHING that a draq queen could do in public. Playing a piano is out. Reading a book is out. These are all "performances".

The vortex is: you won't go on the record as to whether you support this law or not. You IMPLIED you were for it. THAT is the vortex that you and others play, while playing dumb, and telling me "oh, I didn't say that".

So which is it? Are you for or against the law?

If you're for it, can you at least admit that a. according to this law, so long as you're "wearing the right clothes", you can be as lude as you want to kids. and b. it's up to a bunch of Texans (oh come on) as to whether or not a book reading to kids is lascivious.

Gee, I wonder how a bunch of Texans anywhere outside of a major city will feel about drag queens doing ANYTHING in public. Boy, that's a tough call, YA. I must have binary thinking.

----come on man, you know exactly what this law is about. Laws are already on Texas books that prevent what you are CLAIMING you want prevented. Surely you know this. It's not possible that you don't.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:36 pm
The law you THINK was passed? I support that. The problem, as I pointed out.....under 18 year old public cheerleading performances would be banned from public schools. You good with that? I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they were banned.

You never told me where you stand on this, YA. You cool with 15 yo girls wearing more makeup than their Moms, in skirts their moms would NEVER wear...as they perform to other kids, and to a room full of adults?

That's fine?

I’ve already stated I’m for the law and believe the intent is to fully discourage poor behavior in front of children. I trust that judges, jurors, and hopefully lawyers without cognitive dissonance don’t bring forth these cases.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:44 pm I’ve already stated I’m for the law and believe the intent is to fully discourage poor behavior in front of children. I trust that judges, jurors, and hopefully lawyers without cognitive dissonance don’t bring forth these cases.

That's already on the books. LONG before this law.

And it's pretty obvious you know this.

Or do you think that kids are unprotected from sexually lewd acts where you live, sans this TX law that ONLY calls out cross dressers?

I'm not arguing your opinion, which you're welcome to have. I'm arguing what you are claiming this TX law does and doesn't do. Sorry, you're simply wrong. Factually so. TX already protects the public from lewd behavior, as does every State in America.

The part you're pretending not to understand is: Texas businesses can no longer hold cross dressing book readings, or other harmless activities in their place of business anymore. Because in case you missed it----and you keep telling me that you didn't--------that TX law makes both the business and the "promotors" criminally liable for hosting this harmless stuff.

And civilly liable, too. Nice touch from the folks who wrote the law, don't you think?

youthathletics wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 9:44 pm I’ve already stated I’m for the law and believe the intent is to fully discourage poor behavior in front of children. I trust that judges, jurors, and hopefully lawyers without cognitive dissonance don’t bring forth these cases.

You have faith that the “law” is just…that is what you meant to say.