The REAL USPol - February - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The REAL USPol - February

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Visceral Realism posted:

I think it came up in the bad thread, but it's worth noting that the Michigan bill everybody is up in arms about doesn't actually ban sodomy. A bill relating to animal abuse registries required some standardization of related statutes, so the existing sodomy law (which sadly is also the bestiality law) was slightly amended to remove a couple 'shalls' and change the tense of the verbs. Some low info lefty news source misunderstood the amendment and now everybody is getting it wrong.

I mean, Michigan has a horrible legislature that is constantly doing dumb poo poo. But this time we didn't actually do it!

To be fair, the reason it's still in, in this new version, is because the lawmaker claims he didn't think he could get the no-animal-sex bits he modified through unless he also continued to include the no-anal-or-oral bits. Which still doesn't reflect well on your state.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 18:37

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

computer parts posted:

Rural areas don't have complex water systems though.

True, but at the rate we're going anything more technically complex than a multi building well, an electrical system more complex than baling wire or a road more dense than gravel isn't looking at good lifetime odds right now.

Most assuredly the engine of economic opportunity.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:07

VikingofRock: Aug 24, 2008

Lawrence v. Texas means that the Michigan sodomy law is unenforceable, right?

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:20

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/f22-plane-isis/
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/77-billion-22-raptor-fleet-grounded-indefinitely/story?id=13545306
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Operational_problems

I know about the oxygen issues from two years ago which is what all three of these links are about. I don't think that really compares to the issues with the F-35. It's my understanding that the F-22 actually accomplishes air superiority, whereas the F-35 can't fly, is worse than the Super Hornet in dogfights, is hundreds of billions over budget, can't shoot its gun before 2019, has bad visibility because the "see-thru" helmet was never delivered, etc.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:20

Nostalgia4Infinity: Feb 27, 2007; 10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING

VikingofRock posted:

Lawrence v. Texas means that the Michigan sodomy law is unenforceable, right?

Yes.

It also wasn't a "passed" law and last I heard they were considering stripping the language form the house version.

It's a lovely thing but I have to say that I agree-ish with what that one state senator was saying about keeping the language as is to get the bill passed as opposed to making it A Thing.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:24

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Oh, I almost forgot! We're going to pass drug testing for welfare!

Welcome to WV, where we're literally always behind the loving times.

How'd that happen in a state where welfare recipients are overwhelmingly poor and white?

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:25

BRAKE FOR MOOSE: Jun 6, 2001

VikingofRock posted:

Lawrence v. Texas means that the Michigan sodomy law is unenforceable, right?

It's clearly unconstitutional, and everybody knows it.

Here was a good post by a state senator: https://www.facebook.com/davidmknezek/posts/1668209583438258

quote:

I've seen a number of posts suggesting the Michigan Senate passed a new law banning oral and anal sex in our state. If you're willing to bear with me, I'd like to take a moment to set the record straight. I hope you might consider reading this post at length to gain the facts.

Senate Bills 219 and 220, the bills in question, were sponsored by Senator Rick Jones (R) and Senator Steve Bieda (D). SB 219 and 220 would establish Logan's Law here in Michigan, which prevents convicted animal abusers from adopting pets. It is a popular issue that has gained significant bipartisan support.

So why are some news articles reporting that the Senate just voted to ban oral and anal sex when we really voted to prevent animal abusers from adopting animals? A few background notes and a brief explanation of the legislative process should help.

Michigan has had a ban - an unconstitutional ban, I might add - on oral and anal sex since 2003. This is not a new law. It can be found in Section 158, Subsection 1 of Michigan Compiled Law 750.158.

When amendments to any law are made, when additional subsections to the law are added, so on and so forth, a bill is introduced that includes all current language in that particular section as a whole, plus the new and amended language you wish to add.

Section 158, the section of law that needed to be amended in order to prevent convicted animal abusers from adopting animals, is also the same section of law that included the 2003 ban on oral and anal sex. Same section of the law, two different subsections.

The way the information is currently being presented to the public, it would suggest that a bill stating, "Ban all oral and anal sex!", was placed before the Senate and then all 38 of us stood up and said, "Hey that sounds like a good idea! Okay!".

That, as you now know, is inaccurate.

A bill stating, "Prevent animal abusers from adopting animals", was placed before the Senate and all of us voted "yes". It was indeed a unanimous vote - a vote to prevent animal abusers from adopting animals - on a bill, as you now know, whose section of law also included the subsection which includes the unconstitutional ban on oral and anal sex.

To be fair, I would welcome criticism stating that we, the Senate, missed an opportunity to take this unconstitutional ban off the books or at least message on the issue and the need for its removal. It would be fair to say the Senate, by way of not removing the ban, reaffirmed its existence in state law and that's not good either. It would be inaccurate to suggest that we passed a bill to ban those activities that were already, and unconstitutionally, banned in Michigan back in 2003.

It would have been easy to insert language that prevents animal abusers from adopting animals while simultaneously striking the language that banned oral and anal sex. However - to be forthright with you and this is where the partisanship comes in - that would have killed Logan's Law, leaving us with an unconstitutional ban on oral and anal sex still on the books plus zero laws preventing animal abusers from adopting animals. We now have one of the two, neither of which being any less important than the other, and, with the attention this issue now has, we can try to remove the unconstitutional ban in the House or through separate legislation that I would support and co-sponsor.

In conclusion, this issue has, again, highlighted for me two of the greatest frustrations of this job - the ability of an inaccurate headline to mislead the public and the power a one-sentence headline that's easily shareable has versus a long-winded explanation like this that likely few will read. Sound bytes always beat the long-winded explanations but they are rarely, if at all, accurate.

Sometimes it's a stretching of the truth, sometimes it's a downright lie, but it almost always leads to a distrust of elected officials and frustrations with the political process. The public rightly responded with outrage thinking that we were wasting time and taxpayer dollars on such a silly bill. This is what you were led to believe. I don't blame you.

My commitment has been and will always be as such - I am an ally and a strong supporter of the LGBTQ community; I don't care what two people do in the privacy of their own homes; and when presented with the opportunity to educate and inform, I will always welcome your criticism with the opportunity to share an "inside baseball" perspective of the legislative process and how it works (or doesn't). That is my commitment to you and I hope you might meet me halfway in spreading the truth. We will all be better for it.

I welcome your comments, questions, and concerns below. Thanks, my friends!

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:25

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

I know about the oxygen issues from two years ago which is what all three of these links are about. I don't think that really compares to the issues with the F-35. It's my understanding that the F-22 actually accomplishes air superiority, whereas the F-35 can't fly, is worse than the Super Hornet in dogfights, is hundreds of billions over budget, can't shoot its gun before 2019, has bad visibility because the "see-thru" helmet was never delivered, etc.

I don't think you need the F-22 to achieve air superiority against an enemy that can't fly.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:28

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Gravel Gravy posted:

Worked in Florida

Courts struck it down.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:29

Rincewinds: Jul 30, 2014; MEAT IS MEAT

PhazonLink posted:

His name is Thomas Midgley, Jr.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZAnnvSOEmw

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:29

Nostalgia4Infinity: Feb 27, 2007; 10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

It's clearly unconstitutional, and everybody knows it.

Here was a good post by a state senator: https://www.facebook.com/davidmknezek/posts/1668209583438258

An insanely good post. The Henny Pennying I've seen over this "new" law has been insane.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:33

LeeMajors: Jan 20, 2005; I've gotta stop fantasizing about Lee Majors...
Ah, one more!

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

http://wvmetronews.com/2016/02/08/house-passes-permitless-conceal-carry-bill/

Oh good it passed.

We've had upstate slackjawed assholes like Lee Bright proposing this poo poo every couple of years forever.

Nikki Haley, who is profoundly awful, backs it. :smith:

This loving country, man.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:36

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Gravel Gravy posted:

I don't think you need the F-22 to achieve air superiority against an enemy that can't fly.

That's what my first post was saying. Again, the question here is whether or not the F-22 is a good plane, not whether or not we need it.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:48

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

An insanely good post. The Henny Pennying I've seen over this "new" law has been insane.

It's a good post but I think there ought to be more attention paid to the fact that these laws are still on the books. Unconstitutional or not, people are still defending bans on sodomy in 2016 and preventing their repeal and that deserves attention.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:49

torgo: Aug 13, 2003; Fun Shoe

The Michigan legislature might not be considering new anti-gay laws, but Oklahoma on the other hand...

Oklahoma bill to deny marriage rights to people with STD's

It's obviously designed to cut down on same sex marriage, since I'm sure the writer of the bill thinks every gay person has AIDS. Ironically, wouldn't it almost ban marriage entirely, since most people have some form of HPV?

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:53

Lote: Aug 5, 2001; Place your bets

torgo posted:

The Michigan legislature might not be considering new anti-gay laws, but Oklahoma on the other hand...

Oklahoma bill to deny marriage rights to people with STD's

It's obviously designed to cut down on same sex marriage, since I'm sure the writer of the bill thinks every gay person has AIDS. Ironically, wouldn't it almost ban marriage entirely, since most people have some form of HPV?

HPV is the cold of STDs. Also something like 90% of people in the USA have HSV-1.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:57

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Someone call the burn ward because Senator Cochran is on fire!

https://twitter.com/SenThadCochran/status/697090927324692480

# ? Feb 9, 2016 18:59

40-Degree Day: Sep 24, 2012

He's got a promising career in political cartoons ahead.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:00

mandatory lesbian: Dec 18, 2012

torgo posted:

The Michigan legislature might not be considering new anti-gay laws, but Oklahoma on the other hand...

Oklahoma bill to deny marriage rights to people with STD's

It's obviously designed to cut down on same sex marriage, since I'm sure the writer of the bill thinks every gay person has AIDS. Ironically, wouldn't it almost ban marriage entirely, since most people have some form of HPV?

this kind of bill being anti-gay only makes sense if the people advocating for it think straight people have some kind of magical shield that STD's bounce off of

also, I think this is more a "people who have lots of sex don't deserve to be married" bill rather then being anti-gay specifically

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:01

Stultus Maximus: Dec 21, 2009; USPOL May

torgo posted:

The Michigan legislature might not be considering new anti-gay laws, but Oklahoma on the other hand...

Oklahoma bill to deny marriage rights to people with STD's

It's obviously designed to cut down on same sex marriage, since I'm sure the writer of the bill thinks every gay person has AIDS. Ironically, wouldn't it almost ban marriage entirely, since most people have some form of HPV?

I'm surprised they don't still have this law on the books. This used to be a common thing like 70 years ago.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:02

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

An insanely good post. The Henny Pennying I've seen over this "new" law has been insane.

Like I said in the previous thread, it's important to keep in mind that there are liberal ideologue rags analagous to Breitbart or Drudge that pander to low information voters on the left. Those are the only places I saw reporting this as a new law, other outlets didn't even touch it.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:02

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

I have to think even if it does pass, it would get thrown out instantly in any decent court

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:03

Nostalgia4Infinity: Feb 27, 2007; 10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING

mandatory lesbian posted:

also, I think this is more a "people who have lots of sex don't deserve to be married" bill rather then being anti-gay specifically

In their heads they are one and the same.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:03

Radbot: Aug 12, 2009; Can't post for 3 years!

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

That's what my first post was saying. Again, the question here is whether or not the F-22 is a good plane, not whether or not we need it.

What's your loving point? We get it, America would rather make lovely planes that have no reason to exist than provide basic infrastructure to its citizens.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:08

Kro-Bar: Jul 24, 2004; USPOL May

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

In their heads they are one and the same.

That bill was introduced by Sally "Gay marriage is more dangerous than terrorism or Islam" Kern, so expecting it to be rational is asking a lot.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:13

Raccooon: Dec 5, 2009

Radbot posted:

What's your loving point? We get it, America would rather make lovely planes that have no reason to exist than provide basic infrastructure to its citizens.

Someone posted that the F22 didn't work. They were argue over that. Not the merits of spending money on it rather than infrastructure.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:13

Kro-Bar: Jul 24, 2004; USPOL May

Ghostface Killah responds to Martin Shrekli, calls him "the man with a 12 year-old body"

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:14

Raccooon: Dec 5, 2009

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

That's what my first post was saying. Again, the question here is whether or not the F-22 is a good plane, not whether or not we need it.

From my understanding the plane does its role very well.

But there are issues with how difficult it is to maintain.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:15

Radbot: Aug 12, 2009; Can't post for 3 years!

Deadulus posted:

Someone posted that the F22 didn't work. They were argue over that. Not the merits of spending money on it rather than infrastructure.

No, if you read the thread, you'll see that someone pointed out the F35 as a boondoggle and then someone said "why don't you pay attention to the real boondoggle, the F22", as if that makes the F35 not a piece of poo poo.

America loving sucks and the more money we can spend on planes that barely work, and the less money we can spend on basic infrastructure, the better. To my accelerationist mind at least.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:18

Nostalgia4Infinity: Feb 27, 2007; 10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING

Radbot posted:

What's your loving point? We get it, America would rather make lovely planes that have no reason to exist than provide basic infrastructure to its citizens.

lol calm down duder

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:19

Greatbacon: Apr 9, 2012; by Pragmatica

40-Degree Day posted:

He's got a promising career in political cartoons ahead.

poo poo, that sort of incisive commentary puts you on the fast track to a Pulitzer.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:20

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

Zeroisanumber posted:

How'd that happen in a state where welfare recipients are overwhelmingly poor and white?

Poor whites are also bad.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:25

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

Radbot posted:

No, if you read the thread, you'll see that someone pointed out the F35 as a boondoggle and then someone said "why don't you pay attention to the real boondoggle, the F22", as if that makes the F35 not a piece of poo poo.

America loving sucks and the more money we can spend on planes that barely work, and the less money we can spend on basic infrastructure, the better. To my accelerationist mind at least.

What the gently caress are you on about? No one itt is suggesting the F-35 is not a piece of poo poo. Do you have anything of substance to add to this question or is it all LF platitudes?

MaxxBot posted:

It's a good post but I think there ought to be more attention paid to the fact that these laws are still on the books. Unconstitutional or not, people are still defending bans on sodomy in 2016 and preventing their repeal and that deserves attention.

It's hard to see why repealing purely symbolic sodomy bans ought to be a higher priority than passing and repealing laws with actual effect.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:25

saintonan: Dec 7, 2009; Fields of glory shine eternal

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

An insanely good post. The Henny Pennying I've seen over this "new" law has been insane.

It's not a new law, but it's important to point out, as the Senator did, that the effective way to do this would have been to strike the unconstitutional language at the same time, but that doing so would have created political opposition to the bill. It's important to emphasize that there are people in the Michigan Senate who will kill effective legislation if clearly unconstitutional language is removed from it.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:26

marathon Stairmaster sesh: Apr 28, 2009; ALL HAIL CEO NUGGET
1988-PRESENT

Kro-Bar posted:

Ghostface Killah responds to Martin Shrekli, calls him "the man with a 12 year-old body"

You should've highlighted the part where Shrekli made a video threatening to edit the rarest Wu-Tang Clan album and remove Ghostface's parts. HE loving THREATENED TO EDIT A WU-TANG FOUNDER'S PARTS OUT.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:31

Forever_Peace: May 7, 2007; Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah Shoe do do do do do do do Shoe do do do do do do yeah

Holy poo poo, just heard Michael Shermer (with Skeptic Magazine, Scientific American, and Time) on todays "to the point", and apparently he's a avid Trump supporter.

Surprised that a leading "skeptic" would support Trump, I checked out his twitter.

Damnit Shermer why you gotta be a raging rear end in a top hat.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:37

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Kro-Bar posted:

Ghostface Killah responds to Martin Shrekli, calls him "the man with a 12 year-old body"

Also if you are ever like "is Vice legit?" their current social media director is apparently involved with Shkreli and is showing up on his bizarre livestreams.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:37

FetusSlapper: Jan 6, 2005; by exmarx

Marlamaid Swordhand posted:

You should've highlighted the part where Shrekli made a video threatening to edit the rarest Wu-Tang Clan album and remove Ghostface's parts. HE loving THREATENED TO EDIT A WU-TANG FOUNDER'S PARTS OUT.

I don't get that guy. Is being a negative attention whore a thing? Is that what Ann Coulter is?

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:37

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

LeeMajors posted:

We've had upstate slackjawed assholes like Lee Bright proposing this poo poo every couple of years forever.

Nikki Haley, who is profoundly awful, backs it.

This loving country, man.

Our governor, who has a 100% lifetime NRA rating has pledged to veto it over law enforcement concerns.

Who would imagine that the Police would be an assist on this.

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 18:37

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

*assumes punditest demeanor* They have a saying around here: In Iowa they pick corn, in New Hampshire they pick presidents *entire studio laughs*

I loving hate this "haha isn't it so QUAINT and INTERESTING how we do this around here, look it's a town of six people that is voting."

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/697122711143870464

WE ARE SPECIAL PEOPLE HERE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

# ? Feb 9, 2016 19:39

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The REAL USPol - February

«‹›154 »