If he was basing his comments on my "proven" track record, then he's just deluded as I have posted anti-voter fraud stuff prior to 2015 when Trump came down the escalator.

Ah, but you are innocent despite calling me an asshole and misrepresenting my stance.

You're no better than anyone else, despite you believing liberals are wonderful and perfect.

He would take a topic that had never been discussed here and assume my stance, and use that to slag me off. At least I based my comments on his proven track record on actual discussions here.

Pretty sure it was his opinion that he also was basing his comments on your proven track record. That's my assumption anyway. You don't seem capable of admitting you were guilty of the exact same thing he did.

You routinely misinterpret, mis-portray, mischaracterize, etc. the arguments presented by others. And failing that, you routinely rely upon fallacies: ad hominum, guilty by association, hasty generalizations, etc.

You're no better than the temporarily banned individuals.

He always dismissed EVERY post made about actual, proven voter fraud.

He also accused me of only ever caring about voter fraud because Trump lost, despite my long history here (and everywhere else) of being against voter fraud, even long before Trump ran for office.

He would take a topic that had never been discussed here and assume my stance, and use that to slag me off. At least I based my comments on his proven track record on actual discussions here.

I know, you're a liberal, so you can't see the difference.

The 2nd temp ban was because the person routinely assumed my position on topics, in many cases he was completely wrong, using that to slag me off even when I had not posted in the topic. His extreme TDS and hatred of anyone who supported Trump is what got him banned.

You mean like you routinely would pre-emptively put in strawman arguments and attribute them to the temporarily banned person, even before he'd ever even posted in the comment thread. How long are you temporarily banning yourself for that habit?

Didn't even have to try hard to find an example:

"YES, YES, I know our resident troll will be here shortly too screech and bleat some liberal bullshit to justify voter fraud, while losing his mind and exposing his extreme TDS."

The above posted in a thread about voter fraud BEFORE bi4smooth had ever even posted, or even read probably, the thread.

NOPE.

It was the tone and language you used, in that forum section.

If you would have used the same language and tone in the Politics/Debate section, it would have been no harm, no foul.

You have a biased view of the 2 recent temp bans, because they are on your side.

The 1st temp ban was due to the person refusing to debate the actual topic and instead kept reposting the same old crap that I should be banned for not being a liberal.

The 2nd temp ban was because the person routinely assumed my position on topics, in many cases he was completely wrong, using that to slag me off even when I had not posted in the topic. His extreme TDS and hatred of anyone who supported Trump is what got him banned.

I do love your BS.

Go look for it. I believe it was in the Gay News section, maybe General News.

So, if I feel you didn't respond to my comments in a way I don't like, I get to treat you the same way?

Graphic, detailed discussions of teens having sex, is child porn. Imagine what would happen to this site if we had the movie version of that book and it had the exact detailed sex scenes.

You called me an asshole and liar about that teen porn book being in Florida school libraries. Remember that?
Once I found the name of the elementary school that had it in their library, you ran away from the thread. So, using your rules, you are the asshole and liar since you have yet to admit that teen porn book was available in school libraries from K-12.

I don't even remember what you're talking about, but if you link to the discussion thread, then I'll try to make a special point of going back and reading your ramblings on the subject. If you've made cogent arguments that were responsive to the arguments I made, then I'll respond there. Frankly, I don't agree with the assertion that any book which discusses sexual events as a "porn book." By that definition, the Bible in the elementary school libraries is also a porn book.

Actually, I did admit I was wrong, on that single photograph. Also, you act as if I photoshopped it.

You called me an asshole and liar about that teen porn book being in Florida school libraries. Remember that?

Once I found the name of the elementary school that had it in their library, you ran away from the thread. So, using your rules, you are the asshole and liar since you have yet to admit that teen porn book was available in school libraries from K-12.

What you did was selectively quote the 1 part that supported your agenda, while refusing to talk about the 2nd part because if didn't suit your agenda.

That is lying by omission.

As such an expert in this case, tell me, why did you not mention the equally important 2nd part of the ruling, if you weren't being dishonest? Why did the ACLU (and many others) think the 2nd part was equally important, but you thought it was ok to ignore the 2nd part?

So, as an "expert", why did you not include the whole thing?

So you don't understand how quoting works? Your critique of my argument is that I did not post a 20+ page SCOTUS decision; therefore, I don't understand the case.

So, as an "expert", why did you not include the whole thing?

Hell, all I had to do was google the case and read the ACLU website on it, as the ACLU was the ones suing on behalf of the students.

Lets not forget that it was you who called me a liar and other names over that teen porn book being in schools, even as low as elementary schools. You never admitted you were wrong.

Ah, so students can do whatever they want in the guise of "free speech".

The case you refer to was about banning students from wearing black armbands to protect against the Vietnam war.

It seems you selectively quoted from the ruling.

Schools can not ban "free speech" on fear or suspicion that it might disrupt the education process. HOWEVER, they can punish for activities that actually do disrupt the learning process and school order.

More specifically:

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students… are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.

I do love useless trolls.

@bi4smooth

Blah, blah, blah, is all our resident troll says

You sad, pathetic White Supremacist... you think I wrote that for you?

Narcissistic much? ROFL

Blah, blah, blah, is all our resident troll says

@serenity

That is what the laws of the US and SCOTUS say.

Also, NO, the US is not a democracy. The US is a representative republic.

It seems, that you believe that people can break any rules they want, as long as you agree with them.

Even if this student supported the Florida law and protested in favor, I would still say he has to pay the price for violating the rules and knew it beforehand.

1 - @serenity is correct: the religious-right will not stop with "don't say gay" - and they have an insidious new "weapon" they're using: allowing individuals to sue governments over perceived "morals" abuses. Further, the challenge to Roe v Wade is also a harbinger to a sure-to-come challenge to the Obergefell v. Hodges case - the one that legalized Gay Marriage using the 14th Amendment protections to do so. (The religious conservatives consider this JUST AS EGREGIOUS a "moral overstepping" as Roe v. Wade.)
2 - The assumption that outlawing gay activities in the US would make this website illegal is moot. Under US Law, this website is already illegal in many, many ways! And as that legal environment continues to change, the site owners (and staff) have made changes to our rules of behavior that are intended to help keep us "under the radar" of any enforcement... even though I highly doubt that this site is physically housed in the US, coming under attack in US Courts would be - let's just say, crushing.
3 - @raphjd's assertion that the student "broke the law" is absurd, but it follows from his common theme: people who agree with him are to be allowd the MAXIMUM freedoms to express themselves, while other, dissenting views, should be shut down. It is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT under the US Constitution for people to protest their Government. The Jan 6 protesters were all well-within their rights to protest... right up until they attacked and broke into the Capitol building! This student didn't break any laws - he just organized a student protest against a new law he thought was targeting he and others like him... and he wasn't wrong.
4 - the idea that all teachers are pushing a "gay agenda" on their students is hogwash and an overstatement of the problem, such as there is one, to a MASSIVE scale. YES, there are teachers who overstep their bounds, "get out of their lanes" - and they should be punished. But that doesn't mean typing the hands - and exposing everyone to frivolous litigation - is even a reasonable solution... UNLESS your goal is to enforce your own moral beliefs on all others. Sieg Heil! (And I thought the "culture wars" were over for the US after the 1980's and 1990s! Silly me!)
5 - the mere idea that you can "groom" someone into becoming gay or trans is a concept debunked in the 1950's! Ref: Kinsey & Associates). That it's being brought back up now is just "cover" for the fear and hate mongering of "people not like US" (In this case: US is code for: white, straight, christian MEN - you know, the people who built this country and that we should all be worshiping - right now!)

BTW: @raphjd's "replacement" is awaiting entry into the UK right now. He is a black, African, Jew who will take his job, his house, and his lover... because they (people of color, people from poor countries, and non-Christians) are all superior to him in every way!
Or, at least that's what he's been programmed to believe!

They're coming for you!

Ooga booga! (hands waving)

That is what the laws of the US and SCOTUS say.

Also, NO, the US is not a democracy. The US is a representative republic.

It seems, that you believe that people can break any rules they want, as long as you agree with them.

Even if this student supported the Florida law and protested in favor, I would still say he has to pay the price for violating the rules and knew it beforehand.

SCOTUS has long held that students don't have the same rights as others. Only the military has less rights.

Ironically, school boards have parents arrested for reading from the very books the school boards allow students to read.

Let's not forget that at least 1 elementary school had that graphic teen sex book in its library.