The bill’s sponsor told The New Civil Rights Movement that attempting to remove the antiquated sodomy ban from the new animal rights legislation could prevent it from passing.
“The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done,” Sen. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) explained to The New Civil Rights Movement. “Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional.”
Dog bills probably shouldn't be a high priority either, but at least makes some sense given the process of removing bills. Though I'd be curious to see who the fuck would fight for anal sex bans, 81% chance he takes it in the ass in secret.
The bill’s sponsor told The New Civil Rights Movement that attempting to remove the antiquated sodomy ban from the new animal rights legislation could prevent it from passing.
“The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done,” Sen. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) explained to The New Civil Rights Movement. “Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional.”
Dog bills probably shouldn't be a high priority either, but at least makes some sense given the process of removing bills. Though I'd be curious to see who the fuck would fight for anal sex bans, 81% chance he takes it in the ass in secret.
I'm not sure which liberal rag ran with this headline and ignited the fire, but it's hysterical how nuts people are going over this without even bothering to check the facts. The anti-sodomy law has been on the books for decades, and has been ruled unconstitutional for awhile now. The animal rights provisions are simply an amendment to the already existing law that includes the irrelevant anti-sodomy language. This couldn't be more of a non-story.
The bill’s sponsor told The New Civil Rights Movement that attempting to remove the antiquated sodomy ban from the new animal rights legislation could prevent it from passing.
“The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done,” Sen. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) explained to The New Civil Rights Movement. “Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional.”
Dog bills probably shouldn't be a high priority either, but at least makes some sense given the process of removing bills. Though I'd be curious to see who the fuck would fight for anal sex bans, 81% chance he takes it in the ass in secret.
I'm not sure which liberal rag ran with this headline and ignited the fire, but it's hysterical how nuts people are going over this without even bothering to check the facts. The anti-sodomy law has been on the books for decades, and has been ruled unconstitutional for awhile now. The animal rights provisions are simply an amendment to the already existing law that includes the irrelevant anti-sodomy language. This couldn't be more of a non-story.
Probably the same people that own D2Ds rags. You'd be smart to capture the fringe on both sides of the political spectrum, just keep it on separate sites. Shitty articles like this and D2Ds bulshit is the reason that I can't look at Facebook for longer than 15 seconds.
I feel bad for the people in Flint, but just giving their government money just condones the actions of their failed city government. So the next time a city government does something like this, we just give them money to fix it?
My proposal would be to give the government the funds it needs to fix the water problem, and to prosecute the city government officials in Flint for criminal negligence. If the state is unwilling to do so...screw them. No money
These government officials need to be put in jail for their negligence, plain and simple.
pawz
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 18,804
Comments
I'm not sure which liberal rag ran with this headline and ignited the fire, but it's hysterical how nuts people are going over this without even bothering to check the facts. The anti-sodomy law has been on the books for decades, and has been ruled unconstitutional for awhile now. The animal rights provisions are simply an amendment to the already existing law that includes the irrelevant anti-sodomy language. This couldn't be more of a non-story.
Probably the same people that own D2Ds rags. You'd be smart to capture the fringe on both sides of the political spectrum, just keep it on separate sites. Shitty articles like this and D2Ds bulshit is the reason that I can't look at Facebook for longer than 15 seconds.
I feel bad for the people in Flint, but just giving their government money just condones the actions of their failed city government. So the next time a city government does something like this, we just give them money to fix it?
My proposal would be to give the government the funds it needs to fix the water problem, and to prosecute the city government officials in Flint for criminal negligence. If the state is unwilling to do so...screw them. No money
These government officials need to be put in jail for their negligence, plain and simple.