He didn't ask her out of the blue, and her reply of being offended is why he probed as to what she was offended about. I'm not saying the guy is not at fault, I do understand why he would question the fringe of what these proposals require. You're trolling for comparing it to a completely different situation of asking someone next to you if they are a pedo. Context actually is important. She could have just explained her position instead of grasping her pearls and getting offended. To state it clearly, I don't condone either of their actions but I can see motivating factors for either side.

Being on a sex offender registration is part of the punishment for having sex with a minor. It's no longer mandatory. Defending that is worse than any insult youre trying to poke at my comprehension. Grasp a 24 year old who had sex with a 14 year old getting less punishment.

Some small subset of republicans say fucked up shit, just like every other party or affiliation. What's the point of that here. He made a valid inquiry about the limits of her broad proposal. Do you believe that every bill proposed in Rhode island should have a report stating it's impact on every single religion, ethnic background, gender etc etc? I think its slow enough on capitol hill.

No that's your clearly bias perception of the situation. I see a lazy politician who doesn't want to add an extra report for every bill proposed. I don't agree with his politics but I think he has a valid bone to pick with her seemingly vague proposal.

14 15 16 year old having sex with upto 10 years older and they don't want them on a sex offender registration. I read it and I'd say it's a step in the wrong direction. Definitely a step towards normalzing that shit in my opinion.

Here by me? You're arguing against shit I never said. I'm not a republican dude you're seeing ghosts.

That's just not true. At all. https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/sb145

Let's see how this gets spun.

Ok so he is making that point. In a bill requiring all people be considered in a neat little report how is he wrong for probing the fringe of what's covered.

So what about the satanists? Was that a stupid question? Think about the context and how broad the proposal is. Nobody said all gay people are pedos.

There is no rightfully offended. That's opinion. Great stretch tho.

Quite the leap but won't debate because superior. Hella valid persona you've created.

That's like your opinion man

Defense to a valid question? There was no attack.

Yes. It's essentially a probe of the limits of the requested requirements. It's totally a fair inquiry.

It's not baseless. Her claim was being offended when he mentioned consideration for pedos, he said are you offended because you are one? It's valid. What's offensive about his question?

That's valid. Good talk.

She was grandstanding. It was a fair rebuttal to her claim of being offended.

Uncle sage posts dank memes?

Is there no value in protecting business owners from getting robbed? Or trying to stop people from committing the crimes? Stealing sunglasses is just an unnecessary insult to society. You can buy them anywhere for 5 bucks, it's not like they were doing robin hood shit and donating them to the less fortunate. People commit crimes, but other people that aren't poor commit crimes so don't try to enforce laws on them unless you get these other "privileged" groups is the worst thought process. All of them are bad, no need to knock any process that brings criminals to justice.

What was the cost?

https://youtu.be/7J52mDjZzto great video on the technology and logistics of the system for anyone on the fence. Not to hijack your thread friend.

Don't have one but I can say everyone I know that has installed one has raved about them.

It comes down to this. Anyone that wants to help the homeless is actually free to do that. Open your door and get them back on their feet. Don't rely on the state to do it. Be the change that you want to see. If people don't care as much as you do to stop homelessness then they should be taken out of the equation of solving the problem.

Which capitol police officer testified that trump called for people to attack the capitol and overthrow the government? I didn't get that testimony.

Ok. Show me the evidence that he called for it. I would say there's more evidence that security was intentionally understaffed for the event then there is for trump sending them to cause violence.