More Meltdowns from the No on Prop B Page

Play along here. Screencaps below the jump. May not be work safe.

Reading Comprehension

Highlight #1 and her 10 year old have over fifty “babies?” You call non-baby items and animals “babies” because they hold special, singular significance to you. One dog can be your “baby.” Three of them can be your babies. I might continue using the term into the very low double digits. Fifty? We’re getting into hoarder territory.

“That’s the pony I’ve always wanted but my parents didn’t get me because I had too many ponies already!”

The most common refrain is how stupid them big city folk and bleeding heart liberals are. “If only they had READ the FINE PRINT! Instead they were brainwashed by cute puppy commercials! So stupid! Well, I’m not going to let them purchase the farm products I sold to distributors that deliver to different locations, by God!”

About that there reading comprehension…#2 has superb reading comprehension. Boy, I feel like a rube not reading the bill. But wait! I DID read it. As everyone everywhere has already stated, it applies to 50+ dogs, not one.

Let’s move on to #3’s mad reading skillz. The “this bill applies to ALL OUR ANIMALS” meme has its genesis in this part of the petition:

(9) ”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.

Pretty damning fine print. But wouldn’t you know, fine print by itself is just as useless as body copy by itself. What usage of “pet” in the main text does this bit clarify? (Bolding mine):

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog:


4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may have custody of more than fifty covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet.

Huh! The body copy states that the only pets this applies to are dogs. The fine print defines “pet” so you know what definition they’re using. They define “pets” so you know what they mean by “pet DOGS.”

Damn those wily vegan treehuggers and their context clues! If only they had READING COMPREHENSION!!11!

Well, they may not have cursory reading skills, but by God, they still have eliminationist rhetoric and other such huffery and puffery.

Let’s not forget the NRA homestead invasion paranoia and Turner Diary fantasies! No righty failfest is complete without it!

Wouldn’t you lock your kennels if Prop B had failed and enraged ALF members were lashing out in cowardly night ops strikes? Why would you lock them a year before the act is implemented?

Oh, right. Every loss you encounter is a lead up to Bloody Kansas Part II. I forgot.

This last one is presented without comment.

…ok, maybe a few comments.


2 Responses to “More Meltdowns from the No on Prop B Page”

  1. 1 Calvinist of the Ozarks
    November 4, 2010 at 3:25 am

    Some things don’t require any comments. Their words tell everyone everything that they need to know about the kind of people against Prop B and also shows what’s wrong with southwest Missouri.

    There are a lot of good people here. I like it here. But trying to reason with these people on anything is going to be fruitless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Donate to the Kaje!

My Zazzle Store

My Spreadshirt Store

Help a broke blogger and buy some NSFW merch at my Spreadshirt store!


November 2010
« Oct   Dec »
Join the best atheist themed blogroll!

Tweetin’ twootin’:

  • RT @jonrosenberg: We're being tone policed by people who wear "fuck your feelings" shirts. They're not trying to improve discourse, they're… 12 minutes ago

%d bloggers like this: