The Conservative Cave

The Bar => The Lounge => Topic started by: CactusCarlos on April 17, 2008, 11:44:16 AM

Title: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: CactusCarlos on April 17, 2008, 11:44:16 AM
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/floridapolitics/entries/2008/04/16/anatomically_correct_trucks_ob.html?cxntfid=blogs_q_florida_politics

Quote
By Thomas R. Collins | Wednesday, April 16, 2008, 05:52 PM

If only those were just hanging chads they were talking about on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon.

(http://www.prankzone.com/images/items/big/nutz-big.jpg)

Republican Sen. Carey Baker of Eustis proposed an amendment to a transportation bill that would have cracked down on an increasingly popular accoutrement on trucks: hanging sacks - dubbed “truck nutz” — that very realistically resemble male genitalia.

His proposal is to make it a violation worthy of a $60 non-moving violation to have the testicular feature on your car, which are most commonly found hanging down from the trailer hitches of pickup trucks.

It’s just like the state’s existing regulations against obscenity on bumper stickers, Baker said.

But Sen. Jim King, a Republican from Jacksonville, protested that his district is really into the reproductive-organ display.

“There are some people in my district that would display bull testicles that are brass or whatever,” he said. “It’s an expression of just truckiness.”

“In my part of the country those things are very popular — you find them on pickup trucks and muscle trucks all the time,” he added.

And what about a display of an off-color Calvin and Hobbes cartoon that might feature urination? Sen. Dave Aronberg of Greenacres queried. Would that also have to go? Republican Sen. Evelyn Lynn of Ormond Beach said Baker’s measure was a little much.

“This seems to me to be a morality ticket and that doesn’t seem to me to be germane, does it?” she asked.

Baker retorted: “I guess morality, like prostitution?”

The discussion ended up getting cut short, with the entire bill getting postponed.
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: mamacags on April 17, 2008, 12:35:51 PM
From what I have read they are now like a gay man to gay man mating call. :p
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: delilahmused on April 17, 2008, 01:17:04 PM
From what I have read they are now like a gay man to gay man mating call. :p

Gays drive trucks?

Cindie
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: CactusCarlos on April 17, 2008, 01:25:48 PM
From what I have read they are now like a gay man to gay man mating call. :p

So, they're not using the rainbow bumperstickers, window decals, and such anymore?
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: BEG on April 17, 2008, 02:13:55 PM
From what I have read they are now like a gay man to gay man mating call. :p

Gays drive trucks?

Cindie

I thought they drove Jeep's.
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: mamacags on April 17, 2008, 04:12:02 PM
Not all gay guys drive prius cars and wear crocs.  Some are more manly than others and drive trucks and wear boots.  Just look at Texas. :rotf:



















P.S. I am just kidding Texas people please don't kill me!
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: CactusCarlos on April 17, 2008, 04:21:31 PM
Not all gay guys drive prius cars and wear crocs.  Some are more manly than others and drive trucks and wear boots.  Just look at Texas. :rotf:





















P.S. I am just kidding Texas people please don't kill me!

What about guys that drive pickup trucks and wear crocs?
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: Odin's Hand on April 17, 2008, 04:28:30 PM
Whoever has those might as well put a douche bag on there, because, that's what it implies anyway.
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: CactusCarlos on April 17, 2008, 04:35:33 PM
Whoever has those might as well put a douche bag on there, because, that's what it implies anyway.

So let me get this straight:  you've never met me, you don't know anything about me, but yet you've written me off (I'm a douchebag) because of the shoes I wear.  Is that about right? 
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: Odin's Hand on April 17, 2008, 04:37:16 PM
Whoever has those might as well put a douche bag on there, because, that's what it implies anyway.

So let me get this straight:  you've never met me, you don't know anything about me, but yet you've written me off (I'm a douchebag) because of the shoes I wear.  Is that about right? 

I meant truckticles.
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: CactusCarlos on April 17, 2008, 04:38:32 PM
Whoever has those might as well put a douche bag on there, because, that's what it implies anyway.

So let me get this straight:  you've never met me, you don't know anything about me, but yet you've written me off (I'm a douchebag) because of the shoes I wear.  Is that about right? 

I meant truckticles.

Sorry - I'm still touchy after the fat thread yesterday!   :lmao:
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: Miss Mia on April 17, 2008, 04:52:39 PM
Whoever has those might as well put a douche bag on there, because, that's what it implies anyway.

Agreed! 
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: Airwolf on April 17, 2008, 05:06:31 PM
Ok let me get this straight. Those are a problem(The Truckticles) but kids driving with all kinds of crap lighting up the undercarriage and hydralics and tires so small that in winter they hit a patch of ice around here and they end up driving a 2.000 lbs cruise missile are not? Then again these are the same kind on politicians that can't wait to raise taxes when gas shoots higher then an oil well gusher.
Title: Re: Anatomically correct trucks: obscenity or ‘truckiness’?
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on April 17, 2008, 06:17:54 PM
They look stupid and low-class as all shit, but they aren't obscene.