Stupid VA Lawmaker Trying to Snip Testes

[Evan!]

Apparently, actual crime against person and property has been solved once and for all here in the Great Commonwealth---meaning our legislators now have time to take on the smaller stuff...

 

[bigjohnmilford]

That sounds like something they'd do in the other commonwealth too. I never got the idea anyway. Just looks "please pardon the non pc comment" GAY.

oh yeah, nice to see you got your name back.

 

[Kevin Dean]

I've never seen it and I think it does look stupid really, but it's not my place to move to ban them.

No lawmaker with a nut sack should support this law - any more that they should support laws to ban those big foam fingers at sports arenas - they're BOTH anatomy - deal with it.

That said, Virginia already has some crazy F-ed up laws - I actually feel nervous driving on Virginia roads because of how abusively they enforce traffic laws (admittedly) because it's a HUGE source if income for the State.

Run a red light (putting people in danger) and you're fined $95. Drive by yourself on I-66 at 4:30 to pick up your wife - $125 for the first time $250 the second, $500 the third, $1000 the fourth... Really... If it was THAT bad, wouldn't you loose your license after a while? Nope - violate that one as often as you like without loosing your ability to do it again - subsequent offenses are each $1000.

Virginia already bans certain kinds of taillights and license plate frames - I know from personal experience one I bought was illegal:

 

[Evan!]

Yeah, I'd not be caught dead with one of those things on my car...but come on. This is the same douche who tried to outlaw baggy pants, so I shouldn't be surprised.

And no, you don't have any inherent "right" to not see vulgar things.

 

[EdWort]

Your Virgina tax dollars at work. After all, it's a Commonwealth, meaning your money is his money.

 

[Kevin Dean]

After all, it's a Commonwealth, meaning your money is his money.

Without going into details, I did research on the subject and technically there are only three things in the US - States, Federal Holdings and territories.

The official difference between a Commonwealth and a State is that the word "Commonwealth" is used in the state constitution rather than "State". Texas gets some "perks" because it was once an Independant Republic but it's still legally classed as a state.

The "your money is my money" comes from all-around liberalism at the local, state and federal levels.

 

[Air Pirate]

And no, you don't have any inherent "right" to not see vulgar things.

Really? Wouldn't people be allowed to display pornography then?


The balls are rather stupid looking (like someone is stuck in the 5th grade), and the lawyer is even less impressive...

 

[Evan!]

Really? Wouldn't people be allowed to display pornography then?

It's got nothing to do with an individual's "rights" not to be exposed to certain things.

What's happened is that we've given control of the roads over to public bodies, in effect giving them the authority to regulate those roads and what we do on them. Rather than individual rights, this is about what we allow the gubmint to restrict, as citizens---not about our supposed "right" to not see vulgar things. I personally find OBX stickers to be vulgar and offensive, but nobody's outlawing them. The fact is, there is no objective definition of vulgarity.

My point was that our stupid culture has gotten this idea in their head that they have all of these "rights" (the right not to be offended, the right to be exposed to mean people, etc), when in reality, their rights end where others' rights begin. Not to get to philosophical here, but the concept of "rights" means that I have the freedom to do X...not the freedom from Y. We've given the State the power to regulate certain things, thus restricting those rights, but the idea that you have the "right" to be free from things that offend you is absurd.

 

[ohiobrewtus]

I laugh my arse off every time I see a pair of nuts hanging down from a truck. I just can't help it.

 

[WOP31]

Well said Evan! This goes a long with the "no Smoking in cars" policy that people are trying to enact. I don't smoke and I never smoked in my car when i did, but that doesn't mean that i want the government to be able to tell me what i can and can't do in (or to) my car. It is just one more step to letting them into every aspect of our lives.

I think that the real debate here is where do the Governments rights begin and end? What gives them the right to try and enact policy that will further control what i can and can't do? As far as i am concerned their rights end at my property line. (or car door)

 

[todd_k]

If you have those on your car or truck then you are a redneck. That should be punnishment in itself. Now only if the law was going to sterilize the owner.....

 

[Docapi]

And no, you don't have any inherent "right" to not see vulgar things.

No, however, you also do not have the "right" to display items that are obscene in public.

For example, If I were to go walking down the street with MY balls hanging out for all to see, I'd end up in jail. Even if it were just a picture of them.

The question becomes, then, where is the line drawn between obscenity and just bad taste?

Personally, I would consider the truck balls to be the latter- but many would disagree with me.

 

[NitrouStang96]

So now no one in Virginia will have balls? That's not fair.

 

[NitrouStang96]

Also:

Truck balls = stupid

Government wanting to protect us from truck balls = even stupider

 

[EdWort]

Also:

Truck balls = stupid

Government wanting to protect us from truck balls = even stupider

Yep, but they are free to be stupid though.

Now, picture that Mustang of yours with a pair, one red and one blue...

 

[z987k]

I've never seen it and I think it does look stupid really, but it's not my place to move to ban them.

No lawmaker with a nut sack should support this law - any more that they should support laws to ban those big foam fingers at sports arenas - they're BOTH anatomy - deal with it.

That said, Virginia already has some crazy F-ed up laws - I actually feel nervous driving on Virginia roads because of how abusively they enforce traffic laws (admittedly) because it's a HUGE source if income for the State.

Run a red light (putting people in danger) and you're fined $95. Drive by yourself on I-66 at 4:30 to pick up your wife - $125 for the first time $250 the second, $500 the third, $1000 the fourth... Really... If it was THAT bad, wouldn't you loose your license after a while? Nope - violate that one as often as you like without loosing your ability to do it again - subsequent offenses are each $1000.

Virginia already bans certain kinds of taillights and license plate frames - I know from personal experience one I bought was illegal:

Forgive my ignorance, I'm from another state... It's illegal to drive by yourself on I-66? I've never heard of such a law. I could see myself easily getting a ticket for that if I ever drove through or visited the state...

 

[cheezydemon]

I have seen those truck balls and thought.."MAN! YOUR STUPID TRUCK HAS REALLY SMALL BALLS!"

I mean really! The truck is like 55 times the size of me and it's balls are only like 2-3 times bigger than mine. A zebra has bigger balls.

You can't display big real looking ****s on the front of your car, why would some nuts be OK?

 

[Scimmia]

I figure these are the redneck version of a ricer mod. They put then on the hitch because it's got none under the hood.

 

[Rhoobarb]

If you have those on your car or truck then you are a redneck. That should be punnishment in itself. Now only if the law was going to sterilize the owner.....

YEAH!!! My thoughts exactly. Just look at the toothless WT attaching them to his truck in the picture accompanying that article. Hope he hasn't fathered any offspring to further infect an already infected gene pool.

 

[Kevin Dean]

Forgive my ignorance, I'm from another state... It's illegal to drive by yourself on I-66?

I grew up in Michigan so I'm with you on that one, it's EXACTLY why I think the concept of this is so stupid.

Yes, it is illegal to drive on I-66 between 4:30 and 6:30 pm (Those times may be off by half an hour either way, I'm not exactly sure) if you're heading westbound. The restriction is on the EASTBOUND lanes from 6:00 to 9:30 am.

Why?

HOV, or "High Occupancy Vehicle", lanes. You see them mentioend on TV as "Carpool Lanes" but in this specific case it's two-lanes of a two lane highway. I-66 is designated HOV-2 meaning you must have 2 or more people in the car to drive that road. Parts of I-395 are HOV-3.

To make matters worse, if you get on I-66 from US-110 in Arlington there are NO SIGNS indicating that you're driving on HOV and the diamonds that SHOULD be on the road are painted on ONCE in an 8 mile strech and they're painted AFTER you pass the last exit. If you've seen a "Checkpoint Strikeforce" DUI enforcement roabloack you've seen 5 or 6 cop cars but when I-66 ends and all the HOV traffic exits those roadblocks will be 15 to 20 State Police with the sole purpose of ticketing HOV violaters. This way, with dozens of drivers who have to pay fines on the same day, there's no chance in hell that the officer won't appear in court to affirm your violation. EASY MONEY for the State.

 

[Evan!]

Forgive my ignorance, I'm from another state... It's illegal to drive by yourself on I-66? I've never heard of such a law. I could see myself easily getting a ticket for that if I ever drove through or visited the state...

It's not all the time, and it's not all of I-66. it's just the portion between DC and the outer loop, during rush hour---there are plenty of signs that redirect you to the beltway. It's still retarded though. One or even two HOV lanes alongside the regular lanes is one thing---but making the entire road HOV? Eff that.

 

[Rick_R]

If you have those on your car or truck then you are a redneck. That should be punnishment in itself. Now only if the law was going to sterilize the owner.....

I would point out the word is "punishment" and an ellipses at the end of the sentence is four dots (three plus period), but being a stupid Mississippi redneck I suppose that’s beyond my abilities.

As to the subject in question, maybe I just prefer a less crass society or, at least, a less crass public display by society. I'd outlaw those testicles along with the stickers of the little guy peeing on various items, and throw in pants at half mast and facial piercing . . . but that's just me.

Rick

 

[Evan!]

I would point out the word is "punishment" and an ellipses at the end of the sentence is four dots (three plus period), but being a stupid Mississippi redneck I suppose that’s beyond my abilities.

As to the subject in question, maybe I just prefer a less crass society or, at least, a less crass public display by society. I'd outlaw those testicles along with the stickers of the little guy peeing on various items, and throw in pants at half mast and facial piercing . . . but that's just me.

Rick

Yeah, there's nothing quite as satisfying as forcing your own subjective personal preferences on the entirety of the population against their will just so you can avoid being offended when you go outside of your front yard.

 

[Evan!]

BTW, I'm offended by MF'ers named "Rick". I think I'll outlaw them.

 

[Rick_R]

Yeah, there's nothing quite as satisfying as forcing your own

Do you recall a law passing at 100% support? It's (Edit: "it" being forcing your own subjective personal preferences on others) done every day, dude; perspective determines whether it a good law or not. I'm not expecting it to happen, just saying which side I'd fall on.

BTW, I'm offended by MF'ers named "Rick". I think I'll outlaw them.

How Our Laws Are Made

Knock yourself out.

Rick

 

[Evan!]

I know how laws are made, my man, and I realize the unfortunate reality of our culture where we like to use the guns of the government thugs to force our personal preferences on others. My point was, in general, the idea of doing so is morally repugnant. The founding fathers realized this, which is why they created a constitutional republic that restricts the things that the government can regulate (free speech, etc). In a true democracy, which is not what the US is, if 50.1% of the people said we should outlaw green pants, it would be law. You can see the problems inherent in that setup: it's called "the tyranny of the majority", and it's the reason for a good portion of the constitution and the bill of rights.

There's an old saying that goes like this: Two wolves and a sheep set out to decide what to have for dinner. In a true democracy, the wolves and sheep vote on it, and you know how things end. In a constitutional republic, the wolves don't get to vote on dinner, and the sheep is well-armed.

A democracy is all fun and games for the tyrants as long as they're in the majority. (take a look at how the republican party, in the early 90's was trying to restrict the size and scope of government, but once they won back their power, they abandoned that idea entirely). It only makes sense to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority---our founding fathers knew it, and I know it today.

 

[the_bird]

Do you recall a law passing at 100% support? It's (Edit: "it" being forcing your own subjective personal preferences on others) done every day, dude; perspective determines whether it a good law or not. I'm not expecting it to happen, just saying which side I'd fall on.



How Our Laws Are Made

Knock yourself out.

Rick

Like this?

[YOUTUBE]mEJL2Uuv-oQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Rick_R]

I realize the unfortunate reality of our culture where we like to use the guns of the government thugs to force our personal preferences on others. My point was, in general, the idea of doing so is morally repugnant.

You are missing my point. In most places you will be arrested if you copulate in public places. I’m sure there are those who want to copulate in public places and feel we who are of different opinion have forced our personal preferences on them. Your quote above indicates that disallowing people who would like to copulate in public to do so is morally repugnant (it’s our personal preference that such doesn’t happen, not theirs). If you think disallowing them to copulate in public is not morally repugnant, then you should see my point.

You may draw the line in a different place than I, but if you draw the line at all you can't call out others who choose to put the line elsewhere. And there is always a line, and always folks on both sides of it. That’s my point.

As to the "How Our Laws Are Made," just joking.

Rick

 

[Rick_R]

Like this?

*laugh* Exactly! I remember seeing that many, many years ago.

Rick

 

[Alamo_Beer]

Crap do you guys think I'll need to get a new paint job??

 

[Alamo_Beer]

I guess I should tell SWMBO to take them off her car too huh?

 

[Fish]

I am sorry I really cannot imagine Thomas Jefferson defending anyone's rights to put testicles on a horse and buggy. Your kidding yourself if you think those guys would be on your side.
People will always be offended by different things and some of those things will happen in public space. If you ever think its simple you haven't been paying attention. No one will ever come up with a formula that will work for everyone it just wont happen. I do think its a bit flippant to call stuff like this "free speech issues" but it does keep us on our toes and keeps us paying attention so we don't take it for granted when more important issues come up. Such as your ability to speak out on an unpopular war, president, congress, or all girl country band.

People have limits everyone does, and when you cross those limits some people will ask you to stop.

 

[Evan!]

I am sorry I really cannot imagine Thomas Jefferson defending anyone's rights to put testicles on a horse and buggy. Your kidding yourself if you think those guys would be on your side.
People will always be offended by different things and some of those things will happen in public space. If you ever think its simple you haven't been paying attention. No one will ever come up with a formula that will work for everyone it just wont happen. I do think its a bit flippant to call stuff like this "free speech issues" but it does keep us on our toes and keeps us paying attention so we don't take it for granted when more important issues come up. Such as your ability to speak out on an unpopular war, president, congress, or all girl country band.

Actually, there is quite an excellent solution that Mssrs. Madison & Hamilton wrote quite a bit about, called Federalism. It solves quite a few of the problems you're talking about.

And yes, I honestly believe that Ol' T.J. would defend my right to put something offensive on my automobile. Have you actually read any of his writings?

People have limits everyone does, and when you cross those limits some people will ask you to stop.

Ah, true, true---but there is certainly a big difference between asking me to stop, and forcing me to stop at gunpoint. If you don't like the balls hanging from that redneck's truck, ask him to remove them---but don't get a posse (read: the gubmint) together to force him to remove them. I'm always amused when I hear people equate "forcing people against their will to do something" to "asking them to do something".

 

[5 Is Not Enough]

Man I didn't know you could buy those! And all this time Ive been riding on the hitch with my pants down...

 

[Evan!]

Man I didn't know you could buy those! And all this time Ive been riding on the hitch with my pants down...

I tried that, but they kept dragging along the ground so I had to stop...

 

[Fish]

I have read some TJ and I really have never run across an article on obscenity. Now personally I don't care a rats ass about putting balls on your car but I can see that some would call it obscene. TJ says a lot of cool things about personal freedoms but I also know that many of the founding fathers did not consider everyone a person. Who was it (I want to say Hamilton although I can't remember) thought you were only a person if you were a land owner. And then the whole slave thing...

Anyway everything I have ever read about freedoms coming from the founding fathers have to do with FREEDOMS. The big ones the important ones, the freedom to express political dissatisfaction, religious freedoms, monetary freedoms. I have not seen the freedom to do what ever you want. I have to say I think the supreme court is right when they say we have the freedom of speech but not of every utterance. I don't like it when there is pornographic graphite near my kids school. I have limits to what I think is appropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscene

Now we all agree on the big FREEDOMS its the little ones that we have trouble with like this. Now where is the line drawn? I don't know but I think that is why we vote. I think that this nation has decided that there are limits I think that is something all nations have agreed on. But where is the line drawn and how do you know how to decide on it? If you think the balls are ok would you go for a big dick? An open v*g*na? And if that does not cross a line with you personally do you really not think it will be too much for many people?

 

[5 Is Not Enough]

If you think the balls are ok would you go for a big dick? An open v*g*na? And if that does not cross a line with you personally do you really not think it will be too much for many people?

I'll take 4 of the open slits.

New mudflaps!

 

[Dude]

It's done every day, dude;

Rick

Keep me outta this, Ricky Bobby.

 

[todd_k]

I would point out the word is "punishment" and an ellipses at the end of the sentence is four dots (three plus period), but being a stupid Mississippi redneck I suppose that’s beyond my abilities.



Rick

Wow, a stickler for grammar from Mississippi. Now I've seen everything.

 

[Rick_R]

Keep me outta this, Ricky Bobby

Will do. If I see Bobby, I'll tell him.

Rick