Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stripped Rights
  • Start date Start date
JackTheBear said:
Single Grifter-Grampy is starting out very busy this morning.
Click to expand...
Even Pigasshole has managed to switch it up from his relentlessly retarded repetitiveness. Imagine being even dumber than he is. Congratulations.

1689422305315.gif
 
He really just referred to someone else as “pitiful”.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣




What an incredible lack of self-awareness.
 
One particular bill in Califormia is SB14. It would make sex trafficking of a minor a “serious felony”. Under California law, this allows special sentencing and limits opportunities of the offender for parole.

Here it is straight from the horses mouth. There is a link that includes voting history and the text of the bill including member vote… or non votes (more on that in a minute:)

https://sr12.senate.ca.gov/sb14

Democrat commitee members blocked the bill in committee by abstaining from the vote (Yes, you can see who voted aye and nvr in the senate record that I linked above). Public outcry forced the dems hand and they brought the bill back for a second vote two days later and passed the bill out of committee.

Why would dems block a bill, in committee no less; that has insignificant fiscal impact, is largely a procedural law, and protects children from predatory behavior? Not a good look.

Leadership (both parties do it) blocks bills like this in committee to limit the risk to their members. In this case by voting it down in a backwater committee they only have 3 democratic members exposed to the vote (or non-vote) instead of the entire democratic caucus.

Also in this case they tried to do the deed in the lowly Public Safety Committee. A sleepy, unimportant committee that is typically not monitored that closely by activists and watch dogs. This lowers risk even more. It reduces the likelihood of the gambit being detected. The members on lesser committees tend to be more junior and unimportant caucus members, so they are not exposing their “big names” to any risk.

This official senate record also highlights a crappy side of our political process: abstention or in procedural terms “No Vote Recorded”. Politicians would rather abstain than cast a “nay” vote and create an official record of their negative position. They do it so there is no official record of dissent and they can (somewhat) honestly say “I did not vote against that bill”. The hope is that this prevents their position from becoming an issue that can be used against them.

Roberts Rules of Order provides No vote recorded specifically to address two scenarios:
  • Members who are not present at the time of the vote and are unable to vote remotely or via proxy
  • Members who have a conflict of interest and would be exposed to legal jeopardy if they cast a vote
But as has everything in our political system, the humble NVR procedure has been turned into a way for members to side step accountability. They have done so by defining “conflict of interest” to include electoral risks, both in fundraising and at the ballot box. This allows the NVR procedure to act as a shield for vulnerable members on politically sensitive votes… in other words it lets them avoid doing the job they were elected to perform.

This bill is not law. It has not been voted on by the Senate at large or signed by the Governor. As far as I can tell there is not a companion bill in the House. So if this does pass a Senate floor vote the next step would be the drafting and passage of a companion bill in the House. Then there is the reconcilliation process that must pass both chambers before the bill can be sent to the Governor. All points at which dems can seek to stall the bill again.
 
Last edited:
Oof. This would’ve been really discussion-worthy if you had linked to the site with the official language instead a cheerleading site hosted by the bill’s author.
 
Tranny Jesus said:
Oof. This would’ve been really discussion-worthy if you had linked to the site with the official language instead a cheerleading site hosted by the bill’s author.
Click to expand...
The authors page has a link to the senate bill.

But here is the link that the page I linked provides:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB14

So there is the actual public record of the bill as published by the senate librarian.

Regardless, which pagr I linked to does not alter my larger observations around how fucked up the entire legislative process is regardless of party affiliation.
 
Clig Herdunkachuk said:
The authors page has a link to the senate bill.

But here is the link that the page I linked provides:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB14

So there is the actual public record of the bill as published by the senate librarian.

Regardless, which pagr I linked to does not alter my larger observations around how fucked up the entire legislative process is regardless of party affiliation.
Click to expand...
Well, THAT we can agree on.
 
JackTheBear said:
You know your on the right track when the asshole leftist attacks come along😉👍

RacerignorantXButtplug :hys:
Click to expand...
Hey Fat Ass Jack....why don't you crawl back into that cheeze whiz filled hole you came from....nice thunder thighs uncle chunk. Who the fuck is dumb enough to post a pic of himself showing his fat fucking thighs WIDER than an an Epiphone?

I guess you are, Fat Fuck.
:ROFLMAO: :hys:
 
Irreducible complexity explained super-succinctly:



One of many possible examples of the complexity of a "simple" cell:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top