1 2
chada75
chada75 New Reader
1/1/15 5:24 a.m.
PHeller wrote: in New York you will no longer be able to take a selfie with a tiger. I know thats what you all hoped to do. BOO! In New York in February, it becomes illegal to pose for a photo with a lion, tiger or other big cat. The measure, which specifically prohibits contact between members of the public and big cats at animal shows, passed after self-portraits with the animals started becoming more popular online, particularly with some young men on dating sites.

Boo! That is one of bucket list goals is to take a selfie with a Lion.

N Sperlo
N Sperlo MegaDork
1/1/15 5:55 a.m.
chada75 wrote:
PHeller wrote: in New York you will no longer be able to take a selfie with a tiger. I know thats what you all hoped to do. BOO! In New York in February, it becomes illegal to pose for a photo with a lion, tiger or other big cat. The measure, which specifically prohibits contact between members of the public and big cats at animal shows, passed after self-portraits with the animals started becoming more popular online, particularly with some young men on dating sites.
Boo! That is one of bucket list goals is to take a selfie with a Lion.

... In New York?

bmw88rider
bmw88rider HalfDork
1/1/15 8:17 a.m.

So no more selfie's with cougars in NY? Man...Manhattan must be reeling from this one...:)

Nothing super exciting for Texas. The biggest things is there must be hand holds and foot pegs for passengers on motorcycles.

madmallard
madmallard HalfDork
1/1/15 1:14 p.m.

because of the gasoline price drop, look for almost all local governments, regardless of who's in power, to try and pass new gasoline taxes. and soon, not later.

bgkast
bgkast UltraDork
1/1/15 1:21 p.m.

In reply to madmallard:

We need them if they are going towards road repairs. In this state the gas tax hasn't increased in decades, while inflation and more fuel efficient vehicles have diluted it's effectiveness.

SnowMongoose
SnowMongoose Dork
1/1/15 3:16 p.m.
wheelsmithy wrote: In TN, a woman getting an abortion now has to look at the ultrasound, and hear the beating heart before the procedure will be carried out.

That's nuts.

wbjones
wbjones MegaDork
1/1/15 3:46 p.m.

as I understand it, there have been several states that have had laws like this on the books …

and while I didn't read it very carefully, I think I remember reading, a few weeks ago, that some State Supreme Court, or maybe the USSC has stricken this sort of requirement from the books …

it's just the ultraconservatives way of getting around the Roe v. Wade decision … if the legislature can make the idea of an abortion so upsetting, maybe the woman will "decide" to have the baby instead … all this with zero thoughts for how to fund the raising of another child

and before the flame throwers are turned on I don't advocate the killing of unborn babies … but neither do I profess to being smart enough (or egotistical enough) to think that I should be the one to make those decisions for someone else

1 2

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
Ckym70N9Xm2Dh9ii1TAWBYaPjC8pR8WvjbX4wZqJMxsrLMXB5AVToOSiVzigMKkg