Debbie downer here.
This is pure animal abuse by sick motherfuckers that should be degloved.

That poor monkey is likely being trained to handle the cobras as a street show, which involves staking it to the ground and having snakes strike it until it becomes desensitized…which means subjecting it to weeks or months at best of abject terror.
Those poor snakes have been defanged, likely brutally with pliers. Notice it strikes the monkey’s arm but doesn’t stick, also hits his leg…no fangs or that monkey would be screaming.
*terrible

Pure animal abuse. People, don't make your fish pull your luggage around for you.

Afterwards in the hall Romney called Santos a “sick puppy”….reminding us all of his fraudulent charity that stole donations from a homeless veteran’s sick dog who then died because he couldn’t afford the treatment the donations were raised for.
…and…
Inadvertently reminded us of what a sick puppy Romney is himself because he took a family vacation 600 miles to frigid Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof, and when the terrified dog had diarrhea that blew everywhere he simply hosed off the traumatized sick puppy and put the poor wet scared hypothermic dog back on the roof for the rest of the freezing 12 hour freeway drive.

He’s their best, most moral and ethical representative today, a horrific animal abuser with magic underwear.

Just a reminder @bobknight33, liar, Muslim quack, serial animal abuser, and dangerous snake oil salesman Dr Memet Riviera loves to drink urine and thinks you should too….and he’s just the kind of idiot to try to make it mandatory.

Your video, N Carolina Cop Abuses Police Dog. *graphic animal abuse warn, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You cherry picked the portions of his text that you could straw man (timeline of death, your apparent ignorance that animal abuse is a thing that happens and taking the term "throw" literally).

The reality is that what he said is true: The cow is doomed and will be killed using the methods he described.

animal abuse?

This is so bad for a dog's hips. Really this is animal abuse. Most breeds will suffer greatly as they age if they do this sort of thing a lot and often the pain in their hips will be so great they'll have to be put down. They're just not evolved to walk this way.

I've seen movies where the horse has hobbles that pull it's front hoofs up so it goes down on cue. Pure, unadulterated animal abuse.

You can tell in this clip the horse has been trained to do exactly what it does. It knows it's falling. It's prepared to fall. If it didn't choose to do it, it most likely wouldn't. It damn well better have got ALL the carrots too.

Plain animal abuse, I expect several of them dies as well

Animal abuse.
Abusive of the public.
Abusive of the park.
Abusive to the people who have to clean that park.

I hope they get prosecuted, what assholes. How many of those park goers got sick from this, I wonder.
Someone find these douchbags and I'll help hold them down while we tattoo bird shits on their foreheads and cheeks while someone else covers their homes in diarrhea.

What kind of douchebag still uses that kind of foot breaking trap? I think they should have one attached to each limb and be left pinned to the ground somewhere they won't be found, like they do to random animals.
Hunting is one thing, indiscriminate trapping like this is nothing more than random hard core animal abuse by lazy or terrible people.

>>>Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?

That was exactly what Rick Jones said when I quoted him above:
"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional."

>>> Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless.
Ok, "pointless" is the wrong word. "Futile" would be more accurate.

>>> IANAL?
I Am Not A Lawyer. Sorry, thought that was a commonly know acronym.

>>> I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes.
Really? You can't imagine a politician supporting an anti-sodomy law? In a country where Rick fucking Santorum was considered a potential presidential candidate for one of the two main parties?
'cos I can imagine it pretty easily.
Reasonable human: "we'd like to stop animal abuse and get rid of this ridiculous puritanical law at the same time"
The likes of bobknight "RARRRG!! assault on family values, persecution of christians, fganogle..... GAAAAWWWWWWD" (while drooling)

>>> How's 1 year ago? Recent enough?
Jesus, that's depressing. At least, the case was thrown out, and on the plus side, having a ruling against the law sets a precedent.

Look, I agree that the law is ridiculous, and as I said, it's kind of shocking to think this attitude still exists in a supposedly educated, enlightened country. In a perfect world, laws like this would never have existed. Hell, in a fucking semi-sane, reasonable world, they'd have been wiped at least a decade ago when the supreme court declared them unconstitutional.

But right now, US politics is not even close to sane or reasonable. If it was, you could have an actual election between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and a democratic socialist (Sanders), instead of the current clusterfuck of having Hillary or god only knows what on the fucking looney tunes side.

So while the idealist side of me says that every single law like this should be fought tooth and nail, the pragmatic side of me says that until the US political system hacks its way out of the tentacles of the religious right, some ugly compromises are unavoidable.

Given that this doesn't actually make the situation worse (remember this law already existed), it's just a question of picking your battles.

@newtboy, it's not that they shouldn't be doing anything about the water situation; obviously, they should.

But just because problem 1 (water) is worse doesn't mean you can't deal with problem 2 (animal abuse).

Think about it this way: if Jones HAD proposed removing the anti-sodomy laws as part of this legislation, the state senate would have wasted even more time having a completely pointless debate about it. Instead, he chose the pragmatic route of ignoring something that isn't and hasn't been a problem* to use his limited legislating time to pass a useful law around animal abuse.

Also, IANAL, but from what I've read on the topic, one bad section does not invalidate an entire bill.

It saddens me greatly that in 2016 in a developed country, there's even a debate on an anti-sodomy law, and quite frankly, anyone who supports one is a terrible person and should get the fuck out of politics (and preferably life) at the earliest opportunity.

But that's the US political climate.

* when was the last time anyone was actually prosecuted under this law? Honestly, someone should confess to sodomy, get prosecuted and have the law struck down in court.

Sorry @newtboy, gotta downvote this one on the basis that Cenk is making a big deal out of nothing.

Michigan didn't make sodomy and oral sex illegal, it's ALREADY illegal in Michigan. (Hell, it was illegal to swear in front of women and children until 2002, when they were forced to repeal the law after a man fell out of a canoe, swore, got arrested, and then was represented by the ACLU.)

But here's the thing, the ban is unconstitutional and therefore, unenforceable.

Now, should it be removed? Of course.

However, the idea behind this bill was an amendment to the existing bill to create an animal abuser database, and the guy who proposed the bill (Republican Senator Rick Jones) decided that it simply wasn't worth the effort to fight to get this removed when it's already unconstitutional anyway.

In other words, he took a pragmatic approach to fixing an important issue (animal abuse) by ignoring something that doesn't matter (an unenforceable law).

To his credit, he actually suggested another bill that would automatically strike unconstitutional laws from the state (which kinda seems like something that should be happening anyway).

"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional." Rick Jones

http://www.inquisitr.com/2775741/michigan-was-not-trying-to-ban-sodomy-with-logans-law-it-was-simply-not-un-banning-it/

Yes, it's fucking stupid, but "fucking stupid" seems to be the defining trait of most of the US system of government (two party system, electoral college, tacking on stupid amendments, etc)