Congress spends time"wisely" bans horses

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Forget horse, moose is where its at.

[Narz]

If you are allowed to eat one type of meat you should be allowed to eat all types (including dead humans, it's a victimless crime to be sure).

What's next, the government is going to start saying people can't use certain types of medicinal herbs... oh wait, nevermind

[snoopy369]

I can't imagine this will stand up in court ... what gives Congress the power to do this, exactly?

Anyhow, it's quite similar to a local Chicago thing, that Sava's probably thinking of when he makes hjs posts ... the banning of paté in Chicago, due to inhumane treatment of geese.

In both cases, i'm all for banning inhumane treatment, but do it that way rather than banning the meat. That's a blatant act of governmental overintrusion. Blah.

Edit: Oh, good, only the insane House. Perhaps the Senate will have somewhat more sense.

[Kuciwalker]

I can't imagine this will stand up in court ... what gives Congress the power to do this, exactly?

The commerce clause?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
I am reminded me of the joke: the Cantonese (or fill in ethnic group, I suppose) will eat everything with four legs but the table.

Boiling politicians.

NO!

Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y argued that the slaughter of politicians is different from the slaughter of cattle and chickens because politicians are American icons.

"They're as close to human as any animal you can get," said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C.

ACK!

[Odin]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon

Boiling politicians.

[Drake Tungsten]

Anyhow, it's quite similar to a local Chicago thing, that Sava's probably thinking of when he makes hjs posts ... the banning of pate in Chicago, due to inhumane treatment of geese.

Governmental institutions banning the production of foie gras can also kiss my ass.

[Straybow]

Save a horse! Eat more Smurf!!!