Cooked Crack

The Random Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

On 1/30/2020 at 9:16 PM, PleaseBlitz said:

/Farmer with fracking sludge

 

I ****ing love that he brought it in a large coffee from Sheetz.  The dunk would have been if he ate a ****ing Shmuffin while the cowards drank it. 

 

I know you like to portray yourself as a high falutin' lawyer these days but you just showed your true colors by admitting what a Shmuffin is.  

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I know you like to portray yourself as a high falutin' lawyer these days but you just showed your true colors by admitting what a Shmuffin is.  

 

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iowa GOP Lawmaker Wants to Know Everyone’s Sexual Orientation Before Marriage

 

What if you had to register your sexual orientation with the state in order to marry? And what if the orientation you chose was legally binding, such that you could be guilty of a crime or lose custody of your children for changing your mind?

 

An Iowa bill (Senate File 2130) proposes just that: Applicants for a marriage license would have to specify whether they are bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, questioning, or “unsure.” (There’s also a blank to fill in for anyone who identifies outside of the listed options.)

 

No answer? No marriage license.

 

But prospective spouses who give the “wrong” answer for any reason — maybe they thought they had successfully prayed the gay away, or they were unaware of that aspect of their sexuality, or were afraid to admit the truth in front of family members — could have their mistake used against them in future divorce proceedings. They would be held automatically liable for the dissolution of the marriage, and it could be used to prove them unfit to care for their children.

 

As The Gazette’s Adam Sullivan points out in an opinion piece, custody hearings would weight it with the same level of seriousness as literal violence:

Quote

Under the proposal, ‘fraudulent concealment of sexual orientation’ is likened to domestic abuse. Lying about your sexuality, as determined by the state, would be considered as a key factor in custody proceedings when a marriage is dissolved… The Senate bill would put sexual orientation fraud, not marital infidelity, on the same level as abuse. Even leaving a child unsupervised with a sex offender or jeopardizing a child’s safety are not weighed as heavily.

 

Setting aside the problem of marital breakdown, which won’t apply to everybody, there’s something deeply dystopian about what will ultimately amount to a government list of Iowans’ sexual orientations.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very stupid idea. I think it would have the same effect of diminishing the institution of marriage. 

 

For me, I have never married and think it's a wrong idea for the way humans relate to each other. It's the means to enforce patriarchy and tax purposes which also enforce patriarchy. The only time I got a tax break was as a head of household before my daughter turned 18 because she didn't go to college after HS. 

 

The thought that someone could be punished for wanting to divorce because of their sexual orientation is ludicrous, no matter what it is or when they come out. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it far to say at this point a lot of the attempts to help sniff out fake news on social media is hitting road blocks because of folks that are having trouble using and understanding it in the first place?  

 

This and Facebook intentionally playing stupid feel part of what may be a bulge regarding the misinformation age.  One will unfortunately take care of itself naturally, the other needs blunt force trauma to the head.

 

I cant wait until the next Dem administration rips Zuckerberg's spine out through his asshole. Its overdue.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans Fail to Stop Comprehensive Sex Ed Bill Despite Adding Over 230 Extremely Weird Amendments

 

Twenty-four states plus Washington D.C. mandate statewide comprehensive sex ed, but Washington state is not one of them. In fact, according to survey data from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 40% of school districts in Washington don't teach sex ed at all.

 

This is a problem. As I reported last year, 36% of Washington's girls say they were sexually assaulted by the time they graduated high school. And state superintendent Chris Reykdal says we're seeing STIs exploding upward again in our teens.

 

"We can't ignore the data," Reykdal said over the phone. "The message of healthy relationships and healthy sexual activity is not getting heard because we think it's not getting taught."

 

The bill failed last year not because of Republican recalcitrance or pearl-clutching, but because of Democratic infighting, which is too ridiculous to get into now. After the bill died, though, House Dems made it a high priority for passing this year.

 

Republicans still don't like the legislation because they don't want their children to learn about sex and consent in school from qualified professionals, so they tried to kill it by adding an obscene 232 amendments to the bill. Minority parties often hang a bunch of amendments on bills in the hopes that majority parties won't want to spend so much floor time debating those amendments, which cuts into the limited time the majority has to pass other legislation.

 

Though this display ultimately failed, and though lawmakers ultimately withdrew the most salacious amendments, I don't want to deprive you of the descriptions of the more provocative amendments offered by the Republicans. Some of my favorites:

 

• Amd 1755: In putting forth this amendment, which would force teachers to reference the "risk" of pornography in any discussion of pornography, Rep. Vicki Kraft offered to show House Speaker Laurie Jinkins Playboy and Penthouse covers and said discussions of porn in class would instill "addictive pornographic behavior" in young boys, which would, in turn, cause them to see women as objects, which would, in turn, cause them to begin abusing women. If Rep. Kraft were truly concerned about porn's influence on sexual relationships, she'd offer to publicly fund feminist porn directors, and yet she offered no such proposal!!! She also said that "drug addicts and porn addicts have the same brain waves," but she failed to mention that porn addiction is bull****.

 

• Amd 1986: This one "excludes from the list of comprehensive sexual health education curricula any curricula that directs students to resources that discuss BDSM, bloodplay, inserting vegetables into the anus, or similar sexual behavior." Why Rep. Jim Walsh, who offered this amendment, is so specific about vegetables in the anus and not fruit in the anus or grains in the vagina is beyond me, but if I were his constituent I would press him on this.

 

• Amd 1990 “excludes from the list of comprehensive sexual health education curricula any curricula that include lessons about or describe condoms being available in a variety of flavors and colors.” I disagree with this amendment, but only because it prevents teachers from telling kids that condom flavors are gross.

 

Click on the link for more

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you haven't forged 1000 year old scrolls to lift millions of dollars off of fundamentalist billionaires, can you really said to have lived a full life?

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.