ST Alpha - "I don't think this is "of course not" worthy. It's half of the controversial bill that was mentioned on B2. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 157

In response to "Of course not. They refuse to now. -- nm" by mara

I don't think this is "of course not" worthy. It's half of the controversial bill that was mentioned on B2. -- nm

Posted by Strongbad (aka Rambler14) Mar 23 '16, 09:48

(No message)

Responses:

*laughing* I just realized what you're referring to. They put wording in the bill to allow something that's already allowed. -- nm - mara Mar 23, 09:53
I doubt that it's the controversial part though. -- nm - pmb Mar 23, 09:52 6
- That's what I'm getting at. There's 2 components. I wanted to verify that the 2nd component is the issue. -- nm - Strongbad Mar 23, 09:57 1
  - See below, though as to why the first component is objectionable to some. - pmb Mar 23, 09:58
- Also of note (and why sometimes it is controversial) is that it's a law that serves no purpose. They don't have to now. It's a law to make a - pmb Mar 23, 09:53 3
  - I think we can see, though, that it *does* serve a purpose. It makes people think there's a problem that doesn't exist. -- nm - mara Mar 23, 09:55 2
    - *discreetly stops burning American flag* -- nm - con_carne Mar 23, 09:58
    - Yes. It flames the fear. It's like the anti-Shariah law stuff. -- nm - pmb Mar 23, 09:56
Then perhaps somebody is misunderstanding something. -- nm - mara Mar 23, 09:49 4
- or purposely misrepresenting - ty97 Mar 23, 09:50 3
  - Wait. What? - ReluctantCynic Mar 23, 09:57 2
    - Sit down RC, I have some more truth bombs to share. - ty97 Mar 23, 09:58 1
      - *whimper* - ReluctantCynic Mar 23, 10:24

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.