Stupid Republican idea of the day

The more idiot ridden half of the Iowa legislature has just passed a bill which renders it a crime to secretly film or video any farm animal. The motivation is pretty obvious since there have been some scandals about inhumane kosher slaughter and neglect and brutalization of hens in commercial egg production plants.

The whole thing seem a bit ironic when you consider that the same Reps who voted for this measure generally applaud James O’Keefe little cinematic adventures.

I am certain that the Leg’s concern is for the privacy of cows in slaughter houses and chickens in egg laying batteries. It is the same protection afforded the sensibilities users of girls’ gym showers. No serious person could reasonably think that the objective is to protect Big Agriculture.

So, Aggie porn is illegal?

Not if the animal consents.

Er, not that I have first hand knowledge of that. Nothing to see here, move along…

I think the principle of “implied consent” applies in this case. Unless the animal in question has filed a signed, notarized statement to the contrary with the county clerk, you’re in the clear.

Well, that would do it. Had more than one blow to my dignity, Lord knows, but that would just about tear it Get a restraining order from livestock, I’d blow my brains out.

[Quote=Dag Otto]
Not if the animal consents.
[/Quote]

[Quote=Dag Otto]
Er, not that I have first hand knowledge of that. Nothing to see here, move along…
[/Quote]

I think the principle of “implied consent” applies in this case. Unless the animal in question has filed a signed, notarized statement to the contrary with the county clerk, you’re in the clear.
[/QUOTE]

Trust these Ottos to stick together.

Careful. Evil Otto might go Berzerk.

And start taking nehkid peektures of cows.

Story here.

If this doesn’t qualify as a stupid idea, I don’t know what does. Supporting her, maybe?

The good news is that if she wins. she’ll be replacing Ensign, so the conservative bloc won’t won’t be changed much. In the meantime, I look forward to lots of entertainment.

Do the Dems have anyone credible to put up for the seat?

She’s actually trying to run for the House seat of the guy (Heller) who is running to replace Ensign.

I realize that all politicians do it, but I just found it funny that Sharron Angle spent $31 million and went $350,000 into the red trying to secure a job with a $174,000salary, and was running on a platform of cleaning up the deficit.

Just doing her bit to stimulate the economy.

Oops, oughta read more before posting.

I would love to see another candidate run against her, parroting her exact political positions almost word for word, but wearing a clown costume at every appearance. Also, rather than running away and refusing to answer what the crazy phrases like “2nd Amendment remedies” mean, the clown will stick around and talk about shooting people.

“Republican Party, 123,875 votes. Silly Party, 34,989 votes. Very Silly Party, 11,297 votes…”

Northern Nevada is pretty conservative. They’ve elected her to the state senate before, so don’t count her out.

Somebody tell me this is just the result of a misreading or a deliberately misleading story on an obviously lefty site:

[

](Minnesota Republicans say: Poor people with money should be outlaws — Fight Back! News)

It’s sad that I feel like there’s even a chance it could be true. Minnesotans, please tell me this is a giant scam or misunderstanding?

When I look up Minnesota House File 171 I get an item from 2009 that has to do with Health Care.

http://teapartypatriotsofthetwincities.org/MN_HouseFile171.pdf
Do they renumber these every year? Maybe this year’s House File 171 is different.

The actual bill is [url=HF 171 as introduced - 87th Legislature (2011 - 2012)]here](Minnesota Republicans say: Poor people with money should be outlaws — Fight Back! News). It appears to forbid recipients from getting cash out of ATMs or getting cash back at POS from their EBT card. It doesn’t appear to outlaw carrying cash of any amount, though. Not that forbidding EBT benefits from being withdrawn as cash (assuming the recipient receives actual assistance as distinguished from food stamps) is a GOOD thing.

It also appears to forbid the use of assistance funds to buy cigarettes, alcohol or lottery tickets (you already can’t use food stamps funds to buy those things anywhere). I wonder if enforcing that provision is why the “no cash” rule was brought in?