Definitely you are trolling with -------- like that and dragging posts around to different, unrelated threads with no context. Dick move, Lampy, totally lost all respect for you.

I don't appreciate you BS games trying to out me as some sort of deep state agenda secret agent or something.

Maybe I'm your mother in law spying on you. Run with that one for a little while, soak in paranoia.

Why are YOU here? Whyareany of us here?

You are drunk. Thats literally the entire argument right there. The headline about the hiding books to avoid felony charges is LIE. You still trying to work that out? Go back to the top of the thread and start over.

Or for displaying rainbow, or pictures of their spouses. Or the part where it will "erase" gays. Or where it says you can't say Gay.

These things I have never said or typed and I am not responsible for answering them.

Thanks.

#61 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2023-02-02 01:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, you didnt say those things, you said I was dishonest for asserting that those things are not in the law. Which is the same thing.

In that case show me where the things you TYPED are supported by the law or other source material. They ARE NOT. Because the articles are WRONG. The reporters did a ---- job and then other reporters copied the work from the ------ articles. If you refuse to check the source material then you are gullible and vulnerable to all sorts of --------. Its really too late for you to be out, you should call your parents.

There is more wrong than right. The only way to prove wrong is to she you the "right" info, which is the source material. If you care about truth read the source material (statutes and school board docs) you havent you wont and you dont care about truth.

Like I said you are just trolling now. No need to be a -------- just because I won't elaborate. Thought we bonded last night.

I don't THINK they already know about it, I KNOW they already know about it.

Like I said. Challenge was to you. The thread is about the law. Show me where it says teachers can be arrested for not hiding their books. Or for displaying rainbow, or pictures of their spouses. Or the part where it will "erase" gays. Or where it says you can't say Gay. You cant do that because you know by nbow the law doesnt say any of those things. Therefore you know what you clipped is untrue, therefore you know the article is untrue. We are done here. Now you too are just trolling.

#34 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2023-02-02 12:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

And your little game is to convince someone else to type out a dissertation to argue against something that is right in front of you but you are too laze to read a 2 page biull that proves you are wrong about absoluteley everything you have said in this thread. But you be you.

Oh yes, I have read the article it is 9o0 % fiction. It would be easier to pick out what is true. YOU can simply read the source material (the law), which completely PROVES everythging I have asserted....then you will say "Oh, now I see, Miranda was right and I am a brainless moron, I am so sorry for being such an -------"

@#39 .... Wow, I never realized how dishonest YOU are. ...
Says the person who does not report possible voter fraud issues to the authorities.
Pot, please meet kettle.

#46 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-02-02 01:35 AM | Reply | Flag:
Now YOU are being dishonest. It is in very poor form to dsraw irrelevant content from a different thread without context. It was made EXTREMELY clear to you after your REPEATED questions that was NO voter fraud issue to report, there were vulnerabilities that the authorities were already well aware of, and furhtermore, those vulnerabilities were nothing unique or special. Nothing to report to authorities. Now crawl back where you came from, you are just trolling and that is just beneaTH YOU.

"Where is my job to defend stuff other people have said?"
Are you drunk or just stupid?
Lets try this again

I said "Now be a dear and show me where it says teachers can be arrested for not hiding their books. Or for displaying rainbow, or pictures of their spouses. Or the part where it will "erase" gays. Or where it says you can't say Gay."
and you said "Go read it. it answers some of your questions to me."
and I said "No it doesn't, because the answer to all of my questions to you is NOWHERE, NOWHERE DOES THE LAW SAY ANY OF THOSE THINGS."
and you said "Wow, I never realized how dishonest you were until this moment."

Then proceeded to attach a bunch of clips that did not come from the law

And I said, "Wow, I never realized how dishonest YOU are. I will ask you again, WHERE in the LAW does it say any of that? It does not say any of that. Wherever you clipped that from (the article perhaps?) it is not accurate. That is my whole point. The news media is publishing misinformation and outright lies about the new laws

and you said "Where is my job to defend stuff other people have said?"

I think you need to pull up your big girl pants and admit you were wrong, but your won't because you just aren't intellectually honest.

Now, what part is inaccurate that I clipped ? Almost all of it. Im not going to waste my time with point counterpoint. The article is filled with inaccuracies, which I told you in the first place before you decided to quote it to call me a liar. If you would just read the law, you could see that for myself, but I don't take you as a person who is interested in truth.

I said the
Its not, but it is your job to defend calling me dishonest. Why don't you show me where I was dishonest?

Are you a

I never said any of those things.

#40 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2023-02-02 01:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

What part is inaccurate that I clipped?

Be specific. Show your work.

(I'm sorry I caught you not reading the article and making a damn fool of yourself)

#41 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2023-02-02 01:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Read the source material, whcih includes the relevant state statutes, the websites from the relevant counties, and the video from Duval County which is informative (though it also contains a couple inaccuracies about the law). Only then will you realize how many glaring errors there are in this poorly researched article, and outright lies.

Let me be clear. I am not fully in support of this new law. There are parts of it I disagree with. But the media misinformation campaign about it is pretty horrifying and damaging in its own right. From YOUR quoted article, teachers have deliberately covered up or removed their books in lieu of following district guidelines to "make a statement" and told kids their books were taken away resulting in the children crying and writing protest letters to the principal asking to please give back their books. That is emotional blackmail. This process began in July and teachers have had opportunities to have books pre-approved, or to select books from an approved list. This month they entered a new phase requiring those approvals and some of the schools and some of the teachers got behind the eight ball

Wow, I never realized how dishonest YOU are. I will ask you again, WHERE in the LAW does it say any of that? It does not say any of that. Wherever you clipped that from (the article perhaps?) it is not accurate. That is my whole point. The news media is publishing misinformation and outright lies about the new laws.

No it doesn't, because the answer to all of my questions to you is NOWHERE, NOWHERE DOES THE LAW SAY ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

Well there you go! I didn't read the article o at the top of the page, I clicked on the CNN link, but hey, thanks for sharing. Only thing is that is NOT the bill that was signed into law, that is an earlier draft.

Here is the final cut of the actual law. The pertinent (changed parts) are 8(c)1-8

So if it's a "lie" why are teachers hiding their books?

#25 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2023-02-02 12:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

I dunno, you read the article and decide. This teacher said it was to "make a statement"

Don Falls, who teaches government and economics at Manatee High School, told CNN that teachers were told they could box up their personal classroom libraries, cover them up or enter the books into the district's cataloging system in order to check their approval and keep them on shelves. He has opted to cover his books up with chart paper. "I think it's a stronger statement to cover them up. My students have asked me what's going on, and while I did not go into a lot of details, I let them know about the restrictions that have been placed on the books that have come from the district by way of the state."

Its is a two page law. Read it yourself, if you can find it. Which is interesting in itself. I'm the kind of person who seeks out the source material when a claim seems unlikely. There are hundreds of articles repeating the same lies about what the law says. But not a single article that provides a link so you can read the bill yourself. Why do you think that is? That type of obfuscation always makes me a little suspicious.

" @#20 ... This part, "Hide your books to avoid Felony Charges". ...

That's the title of this entire thread.

I do not know how to respond to that. (OK, I have a couple of responses in mind, but I'll choose not to post them.)"

How about be a grownup and acknowledge that the headline is a lie, yes, the premise of the thread is a lie, because there is no need for teachers to hide their books to avoid a felony charge. Unless those books are PORN, in which case that has nothing to do with the new law or Desantis's picture, because the PORN law was passed before he was BORN so yes, the entire thread is a lie.

Does it even bother you a little bit that mainstream media has no hesitation to spread stories that are easily proven to be completely untruthful? It bothers me.

"@#63 ... there is massive pushback against any effort to better secure absentee ballots. That is a hugely vulnerable area for mass exploitation. ...
How? Please be specific."

Being specific would be providing a blueprint, I'm not going to do that. If you prefer to pretend absentee ballots are safe from exploitation, you may continue to believe that. I can't/won't prove it to you over a public message board.

"Indeed, you even to seem to admit that you know of an election fraud channel, yet you admit you do not report it to election officials." They know. Lots of people know. Pretty much anyone who has ever worked in an elections office or on a campaign knows, and its not just a localized issue.

"Given that, why should anything you say about election fraud be taken seriously? Your comments seems to indicate you do no want to prevent it."

I could say the same about you. What have you done for election security, other than deny the need for it?

"What has been damaging to the public confidence in voting has been the Republicans' constant assertion 9without evidence) of voting fraud. Why do you want to continue that assertion?"

What Republican assertion have I continued? Be specific.

"The Republicans have already severely damaged public confidence in voting with their unsubstantiated assertions. And you are continuing to try to do so.
Yes they have damaged public confidence. I thought we agreed we were on the same page about that too? How have I continued trying to do so? Be specific.
I am trying to PROTECT public confidence by PREVENTING a major incident of voter fraud. We may not agree on the best way to accomplish that, but I don't know why you can't see that. AT this point I think you are just ------- with me.

"The sentence before was, "There was some truth within that garbage." So, let me ask again... What is this "truth" of which you speak?"

What was the garbage of which you were speaking. Be specific.....that will lead us to the answer.

"50 | Posted by YAV at 2023-02-01 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

@#48 ... No, nothing to report ...

Whoa, wait, what?

In #32 you said "I know exactly how I could pull off a pretty massive voter fraud at the county level, if I were so inclined, but I am not."

Yet do not think that is something to report to election officials?

Why do you think there is nothing to report?

Your comment seems to acknowledge the alleged vulnerability. Yet you do not want to report it.

I'd proffer that you would want to assure elections are secure, yet your comment indicates otherwise.

Am I misinterpreting what you said?"

---Nope. Because the elections officials already know about the "alleged vulnerability". There are very simple election security measures that could protect it from exploitation, but those measures have already been proposed and rejected. That is my whole point.

"I've been watching it happen with putting election deniers on election commissions, Moms for Liberty (what a lie that name is) getting their believers on school boards, watching gerrymandering keep Republicans in power against the wishes of and the ratios of the opposition, even bypassing ballot measures passed to ensure redistricting was fair and done by neutral non-partisan commissions. I've watched it with the appointment of judges."

All true, all important points, just not what I was talking about. No intent to minimize those issues, but those would all fall under Voter Suppression. The thread is about Voter Fraud.

"I don't see anyone wanting to wait until it is a significant problem before they fix it."
I do. In particular, there is massive pushback against any effort to better secure absentee ballots. That is a hugely vulnerable area for mass exploitation.

"Indeed, we are seeing election fraud being caught and punished (mostly committed by Republicans) on a monthly basis."
Small stuff, I'm talking about the big stuff, I don't know which side it will come from and I dont care.

"So, why do you think that we won't catch it in the future?"
We might, we might not. Frankly, catching it may be more damaging to public confidence than not catching it. What we need to do is PREVENT it.

"OK, so we have kept election fraud at a low level to date, as you agree. So why do you think we will not be able to continue that going forward?"

Because it isn't going to slowly spread, one individual case at a time. Someone is going to get a big plan together and execute it. Maybe they will get caught, but it will still severely damage public confidence.

"What arrogance to assume everyone can be just like you."
And there, you did it again. I didn't say anything like that, Im not sure what you even mean by that, but it is a viewpoint you have assigned to me.

"You certainly did your best to minimize the impact of those concerted efforts and the results of those efforts."
Um no, I didn't minimize anything

"A strawman would have been if I had assigned you a position that you don't hold that's ridiculous so I could then attack the ridiculous position and "win" the argument in the minds of those that don't think critically. "
Yep, you just did it again. right there.