Flytrap #2 - Possible NSFW Content and WAW fail , Whiskey Bacon and tamale hootch

Status
Not open for further replies.

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,993
453
298
42
So they care more about discriminating then helping. Big surprise there.

How they can claim freedom of religion as their reasoning for their decision is really infuriating; they are getting tax payer money to stay open. they should follow civil laws if you are going to accept civil monies.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
How they can claim freedom of religion as their reasoning for their decision is really infuriating; they are getting tax payer money to stay open. they should follow civil laws if you are going to accept civil monies.

Bullshitting is their forte.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Reactionsmassage.gif
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Umm, it's called the Cygnet, not the Gaydon.

And I would totally go for a Fiat 500C Abarth :drool: Does that make me gay?

oops! read that a little to quick.

The Fiat 500 is awesome.

I drove a Fiat Panda around Crete, Greece for a week and that thing was great through the mountains for such a small car with three adults in it.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,993
453
298
42
So Texas bill HB602 failed to pass. This bill would have given stores the option to sell liquor on Sundays, stores can sell brewpubs brews, and let breweries and distilleries can't sell their wares directly from their locations. They still have to go through a distributor. Yet since all of these laws were enacted ages ago, wine has been excused from any of these.

Seriously why the double standard? Budweiser needs to just leave. Seriously. Talk about killing jobs, this would have let the breweries expand to meet the predicted growth that these rulings would have led to and would have ADDED jobs. And how is Bud allowed to have their own distributors and not any other breweries?

The reasoning the representative on the House Committee on Licensing and Admin Procedures gave for this ruling and his recommendation is he said it’s difficult to change decades-old laws without affecting someone’s financial interest.

WTF
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.