Hoosier Hysterics: RWNJs, Nutters and Co. turn on Mike Pence (R-IN)

[Statistikhengst]

I find the WND headline especially enlightening.... since George Wallace was such a fucking disgusting racist. Fascinating...

What a twit, lie much?

Have you come out to those close to you......because it's obvious you have a dog in this hunt flamer.

So, setting your ad hom aside, since that is generally all you have to shoot with, poor little creature, are you completely ignorant of George Wallace's history and record?

I am betting that you are extremely ignorant of this.

And no, one doesn't have to be gay to support gays. Gays have lots and lots of straight allies.

Your silly straw men aside, you are willfully ignorant of the Law you are screaming about.

I support your "right" to marry your boyfriend, I support you having all the other "rights" everyone else is entitled to.

I would spit in your face as I tell you that your demand that your "right" to buy your cake at the expense of the proprietors "right" to practice their religion is fucking stupid.

You people are much like small children, you want what you want when you want it and to hell with everyone else.

How did that work out for you growing up?

Well, since I am together with a woman, you don't need to support me being with a man, thanks, but not thanks.

You seem angry. But then again, you always seem angry. Have any actual information to add to the discussion, or do you just need to drag your knuckles really low and scream a lot?

 

[Antares]

I find the WND headline especially enlightening.... since George Wallace was such a fucking disgusting racist. Fascinating...

What a twit, lie much?

Have you come out to those close to you......because it's obvious you have a dog in this hunt flamer.

So, setting your ad hom aside, since that is generally all you have to shoot with, poor little creature, are you completely ignorant of George Wallace's history and record?

I am betting that you are extremely ignorant of this.

And no, one doesn't have to be gay to support gays. Gays have lots and lots of straight allies.

Your silly straw men aside, you are willfully ignorant of the Law you are screaming about.

I support your "right" to marry your boyfriend, I support you having all the other "rights" everyone else is entitled to.

I would spit in your face as I tell you that your demand that your "right" to buy your cake at the expense of the proprietors "right" to practice their religion is fucking stupid.

You people are much like small children, you want what you want when you want it and to hell with everyone else.

How did that work out for you growing up?

Well, since I am together with a woman, you don't need to support me being with a man, thanks, but not thanks.

You seem angry. But then again, you always seem angry. Have any actual information to add to the discussion, or do you just need to drag your knuckles really low and scream a lot?

Sweetie a lot of you are on the down low, she makes a nice window dressing for you

.Angry? (smile)

It's the internet, I never get angry and you aren't intelligent enough to make me angry.

I did however notice you in no way dealt with the fact that you demand your "right" to buy your cake supersede the "right" of the Baker to choose not to sell it to you as he/she practices their religion.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I find the WND headline especially enlightening.... since George Wallace was such a fucking disgusting racist. Fascinating...

What a twit, lie much?

Have you come out to those close to you......because it's obvious you have a dog in this hunt flamer.

So, setting your ad hom aside, since that is generally all you have to shoot with, poor little creature, are you completely ignorant of George Wallace's history and record?

I am betting that you are extremely ignorant of this.

And no, one doesn't have to be gay to support gays. Gays have lots and lots of straight allies.

Your silly straw men aside, you are willfully ignorant of the Law you are screaming about.

I support your "right" to marry your boyfriend, I support you having all the other "rights" everyone else is entitled to.

I would spit in your face as I tell you that your demand that your "right" to buy your cake at the expense of the proprietors "right" to practice their religion is fucking stupid.

You people are much like small children, you want what you want when you want it and to hell with everyone else.

How did that work out for you growing up?

Well, since I am together with a woman, you don't need to support me being with a man, thanks, but not thanks.

You seem angry. But then again, you always seem angry. Have any actual information to add to the discussion, or do you just need to drag your knuckles really low and scream a lot?

Sweetie a lot of you are on the down low, she makes a nice window dressing for you

.Angry? (smile)

It's the internet, I never get angry and you aren't intelligent enough to make me angry.

I did however notice you in no way dealt with the fact that you demand your "right" to buy your cake supersede the "right" of the Baker to choose not to sell it to you as he/she practices their religion.

And this is the moment where you completely lose the argument, lock, stock and barrel.

It's not about a "right". Your bellyaching was all for naught.

It's about the law of the land, and the execution thereof.

The PA laws are there for any adult to read.

It's not a moral issue, it's a legal issue. Pay attention and learn the difference.

I graciously accept your concession. Thank you for playing.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What a twit, lie much?

Have you come out to those close to you......because it's obvious you have a dog in this hunt flamer.

So, setting your ad hom aside, since that is generally all you have to shoot with, poor little creature, are you completely ignorant of George Wallace's history and record?

I am betting that you are extremely ignorant of this.

And no, one doesn't have to be gay to support gays. Gays have lots and lots of straight allies.

Your silly straw men aside, you are willfully ignorant of the Law you are screaming about.

I support your "right" to marry your boyfriend, I support you having all the other "rights" everyone else is entitled to.

I would spit in your face as I tell you that your demand that your "right" to buy your cake at the expense of the proprietors "right" to practice their religion is fucking stupid.

You people are much like small children, you want what you want when you want it and to hell with everyone else.

How did that work out for you growing up?

Well, since I am together with a woman, you don't need to support me being with a man, thanks, but not thanks.

You seem angry. But then again, you always seem angry. Have any actual information to add to the discussion, or do you just need to drag your knuckles really low and scream a lot?

Sweetie a lot of you are on the down low, she makes a nice window dressing for you

.Angry? (smile)

It's the internet, I never get angry and you aren't intelligent enough to make me angry.

I did however notice you in no way dealt with the fact that you demand your "right" to buy your cake supersede the "right" of the Baker to choose not to sell it to you as he/she practices their religion.

And this is the moment where you completely lose the argument, lock, stock and barrel.

It's not about a "right". Your bellyaching was all for naught.

It's about the law of the land, and the execution thereof.

The PA laws are there for any adult to read.

It's not a moral issue, it's a legal issue. Pay attention and learn the difference.

I graciously accept your concession. Thank you for playing.

Right now what's in dispute is if there should be a "law of the land" that violates the Constitution. Many say no.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, setting your ad hom aside, since that is generally all you have to shoot with, poor little creature, are you completely ignorant of George Wallace's history and record?

I am betting that you are extremely ignorant of this.

And no, one doesn't have to be gay to support gays. Gays have lots and lots of straight allies.

Your silly straw men aside, you are willfully ignorant of the Law you are screaming about.

I support your "right" to marry your boyfriend, I support you having all the other "rights" everyone else is entitled to.

I would spit in your face as I tell you that your demand that your "right" to buy your cake at the expense of the proprietors "right" to practice their religion is fucking stupid.

You people are much like small children, you want what you want when you want it and to hell with everyone else.

How did that work out for you growing up?

Well, since I am together with a woman, you don't need to support me being with a man, thanks, but not thanks.

You seem angry. But then again, you always seem angry. Have any actual information to add to the discussion, or do you just need to drag your knuckles really low and scream a lot?

Sweetie a lot of you are on the down low, she makes a nice window dressing for you

.Angry? (smile)

It's the internet, I never get angry and you aren't intelligent enough to make me angry.

I did however notice you in no way dealt with the fact that you demand your "right" to buy your cake supersede the "right" of the Baker to choose not to sell it to you as he/she practices their religion.

And this is the moment where you completely lose the argument, lock, stock and barrel.

It's not about a "right". Your bellyaching was all for naught.

It's about the law of the land, and the execution thereof.

The PA laws are there for any adult to read.

It's not a moral issue, it's a legal issue. Pay attention and learn the difference.

I graciously accept your concession. Thank you for playing.

Right now what's in dispute is if there should be a "law of the land" that violates the Constitution. Many say no.

Nonsense.

No one is seeking to 'violate' the Constitution; public accommodations laws are necessary and proper as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

The idiocy of all this is, of course, that there is no 'growing intolerance toward religion,' the notion is ridiculous, unfounded, and devoid of merit.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Your silly straw men aside, you are willfully ignorant of the Law you are screaming about.

I support your "right" to marry your boyfriend, I support you having all the other "rights" everyone else is entitled to.

I would spit in your face as I tell you that your demand that your "right" to buy your cake at the expense of the proprietors "right" to practice their religion is fucking stupid.

You people are much like small children, you want what you want when you want it and to hell with everyone else.

How did that work out for you growing up?

Well, since I am together with a woman, you don't need to support me being with a man, thanks, but not thanks.

You seem angry. But then again, you always seem angry. Have any actual information to add to the discussion, or do you just need to drag your knuckles really low and scream a lot?

Sweetie a lot of you are on the down low, she makes a nice window dressing for you

.Angry? (smile)

It's the internet, I never get angry and you aren't intelligent enough to make me angry.

I did however notice you in no way dealt with the fact that you demand your "right" to buy your cake supersede the "right" of the Baker to choose not to sell it to you as he/she practices their religion.

And this is the moment where you completely lose the argument, lock, stock and barrel.

It's not about a "right". Your bellyaching was all for naught.

It's about the law of the land, and the execution thereof.

The PA laws are there for any adult to read.

It's not a moral issue, it's a legal issue. Pay attention and learn the difference.

I graciously accept your concession. Thank you for playing.

Right now what's in dispute is if there should be a "law of the land" that violates the Constitution. Many say no.

Nonsense.

No one is seeking to 'violate' the Constitution; public accommodations laws are necessary and proper as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

The idiocy of all this is, of course, that there is no 'growing intolerance toward religion,' the notion is ridiculous, unfounded, and devoid of merit.

Public accommodation laws are invalid when they violate the Constitution. Now you know.

 

[Coyote]

These Indiana legislators need to conduct a Balls Check...

To see if they still have theirs...

Because the issue is in grave doubt...

I agree.

It took no balls to write a law this hateful and cowardly.

It will take balls to correct it.

Oh, it took balls, alright, to write a law designed to stand up to the Gay Mafia.

Trouble is, more was required, and they lacked the courage of their convictions, and chickened-out.

Somewhere between the time that they crafted the Law and the time they folded, they lost a pair.

This law is part of a series of pre-packaged rightwing legislation put together by outside special interest groups and marketed to Republican run states. Pence, and his cohorts were elected to serve the people of Indiana. Given the huge negative reaction from within Indiana - one has to wonder if Pence & Co have a clue as to what their constituents want?

It's not the "courage of their convictions" that's at question, it's the courage of their ignorance.

 

[Roadrunner]

Now that Mike Pence (R-Tea, IN) wants to tweak the "We hate gays" law, the blowback from the Extreme Right is impressive to watch:

FYI.

Discuss.

How did this go sour so quickly for Gov. Pence (R-Tea, IN) ?

R's took bait, hook, line, sinker, to the gut, just like with Sandra Fluke.

They never learn.

 

[Roadrunner]

I find the WND headline especially enlightening.... since George Wallace was such a fucking disgusting racist. Fascinating...

What a twit, lie much?

Have you come out to those close to you......because it's obvious you have a dog in this hunt flamer.

So, setting your ad hom aside, since that is generally all you have to shoot with, poor little creature, are you completely ignorant of George Wallace's history and record?

I am betting that you are extremely ignorant of this.

And no, one doesn't have to be gay to support gays. Gays have lots and lots of straight allies.

For the record, George Wallace did "evolve" a lot, like Obama, who was "against gay marriage before he was for gay marriage".

 

[Dot Com]

Now that Mike Pence (R-Tea, IN) wants to tweak the "We hate gays" law, the blowback from the Extreme Right is impressive to watch:

FYI.

Discuss.

How did this go sour so quickly for Gov. Pence (R-Tea, IN) ?

roflmao XD

 

[tinydancer]

These Indiana legislators need to conduct a Balls Check...

To see if they still have theirs...

Because the issue is in grave doubt...

I agree.

It took no balls to write a law this hateful and cowardly.

It will take balls to correct it.

Oh, it took balls, alright, to write a law designed to stand up to the Gay Mafia.

Trouble is, more was required, and they lacked the courage of their convictions, and chickened-out.

Somewhere between the time that they crafted the Law and the time they folded, they lost a pair.

This law is part of a series of pre-packaged rightwing legislation put together by outside special interest groups and marketed to Republican run states. Pence, and his cohorts were elected to serve the people of Indiana. Given the huge negative reaction from within Indiana - one has to wonder if Pence & Co have a clue as to what their constituents want?

It's not the "courage of their convictions" that's at question, it's the courage of their ignorance.

This law was based on the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 co sponsored by Senator Schumer and signed into law by none other than President Clinton.

I've never viewed them as right wing

Here is the difference between the Federal law and the State law. They simply added "for profits" based on the ruling of the Supremes in favor of Hobby Lobby.

That win by the way by Hobby Lobby was based on the '93 RFRA law and the Justices expanded the law to include "for profits" have the right to have "religious" freedom.

A couple of other minor differences but #1 was the biggie that got the hysterics rolling.

I've seen a lot of garbage from left wingers over the years but nothing as wild and crazy and over the top as the bullshit and hysteria surrounding this law.

The clarification was appropriate given the rabid reaction of so many who never took the time to read the law. But the law stands. And as it should. 20 states over the years have passed their version of RFRA and there has been no mass hysteria but this Indiana one was seriously ginned up.

Here you go. Don't take my word for it.

1) Unlike the federal law, the Indiana bill explicitly protects the exercise of religion of entities, which includes for profit corporations.

The law

Another couple at link. Good article.

How Indiana s RFRA differs from federal version

 

[Antares]

What a twit, lie much?

Have you come out to those close to you......because it's obvious you have a dog in this hunt flamer.

So, setting your ad hom aside, since that is generally all you have to shoot with, poor little creature, are you completely ignorant of George Wallace's history and record?

I am betting that you are extremely ignorant of this.

And no, one doesn't have to be gay to support gays. Gays have lots and lots of straight allies.

Your silly straw men aside, you are willfully ignorant of the Law you are screaming about.

I support your "right" to marry your boyfriend, I support you having all the other "rights" everyone else is entitled to.

I would spit in your face as I tell you that your demand that your "right" to buy your cake at the expense of the proprietors "right" to practice their religion is fucking stupid.

You people are much like small children, you want what you want when you want it and to hell with everyone else.

How did that work out for you growing up?

Well, since I am together with a woman, you don't need to support me being with a man, thanks, but not thanks.

You seem angry. But then again, you always seem angry. Have any actual information to add to the discussion, or do you just need to drag your knuckles really low and scream a lot?

Sweetie a lot of you are on the down low, she makes a nice window dressing for you

.Angry? (smile)

It's the internet, I never get angry and you aren't intelligent enough to make me angry.

I did however notice you in no way dealt with the fact that you demand your "right" to buy your cake supersede the "right" of the Baker to choose not to sell it to you as he/she practices their religion.

And this is the moment where you completely lose the argument, lock, stock and barrel.

It's not about a "right". Your bellyaching was all for naught.

It's about the law of the land, and the execution thereof.

The PA laws are there for any adult to read.

It's not a moral issue, it's a legal issue. Pay attention and learn the difference.

I graciously accept your concession. Thank you for playing.

LOL.

Translation: " I win because I say I do and besides, you're just a big poopy head."

That's not the way life works little man, you are losing badly here and it irks you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, setting your ad hom aside, since that is generally all you have to shoot with, poor little creature, are you completely ignorant of George Wallace's history and record?

I am betting that you are extremely ignorant of this.

And no, one doesn't have to be gay to support gays. Gays have lots and lots of straight allies.

Your silly straw men aside, you are willfully ignorant of the Law you are screaming about.

I support your "right" to marry your boyfriend, I support you having all the other "rights" everyone else is entitled to.

I would spit in your face as I tell you that your demand that your "right" to buy your cake at the expense of the proprietors "right" to practice their religion is fucking stupid.

You people are much like small children, you want what you want when you want it and to hell with everyone else.

How did that work out for you growing up?

Well, since I am together with a woman, you don't need to support me being with a man, thanks, but not thanks.

You seem angry. But then again, you always seem angry. Have any actual information to add to the discussion, or do you just need to drag your knuckles really low and scream a lot?

Sweetie a lot of you are on the down low, she makes a nice window dressing for you

.Angry? (smile)

It's the internet, I never get angry and you aren't intelligent enough to make me angry.

I did however notice you in no way dealt with the fact that you demand your "right" to buy your cake supersede the "right" of the Baker to choose not to sell it to you as he/she practices their religion.

And this is the moment where you completely lose the argument, lock, stock and barrel.

It's not about a "right". Your bellyaching was all for naught.

It's about the law of the land, and the execution thereof.

The PA laws are there for any adult to read.

It's not a moral issue, it's a legal issue. Pay attention and learn the difference.

I graciously accept your concession. Thank you for playing.

LOL.

Translation: " I win because I say I do and besides, you're just a big poopy head."

That's not the way life works little man, you are losing badly here and it irks you.

No. You lost because you never grasped the point to begin with.

 

[Antares]

Your silly straw men aside, you are willfully ignorant of the Law you are screaming about.

I support your "right" to marry your boyfriend, I support you having all the other "rights" everyone else is entitled to.

I would spit in your face as I tell you that your demand that your "right" to buy your cake at the expense of the proprietors "right" to practice their religion is fucking stupid.

You people are much like small children, you want what you want when you want it and to hell with everyone else.

How did that work out for you growing up?

Well, since I am together with a woman, you don't need to support me being with a man, thanks, but not thanks.

You seem angry. But then again, you always seem angry. Have any actual information to add to the discussion, or do you just need to drag your knuckles really low and scream a lot?

Sweetie a lot of you are on the down low, she makes a nice window dressing for you

.Angry? (smile)

It's the internet, I never get angry and you aren't intelligent enough to make me angry.

I did however notice you in no way dealt with the fact that you demand your "right" to buy your cake supersede the "right" of the Baker to choose not to sell it to you as he/she practices their religion.

And this is the moment where you completely lose the argument, lock, stock and barrel.

It's not about a "right". Your bellyaching was all for naught.

It's about the law of the land, and the execution thereof.

The PA laws are there for any adult to read.

It's not a moral issue, it's a legal issue. Pay attention and learn the difference.

I graciously accept your concession. Thank you for playing.

LOL.

Translation: " I win because I say I do and besides, you're just a big poopy head."

That's not the way life works little man, you are losing badly here and it irks you.

No. You lost because you never grasped the point to begin with.

You poor child (intellectually) on your best day you aren't up to a logical debate with even someone like franco.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, since I am together with a woman, you don't need to support me being with a man, thanks, but not thanks.

You seem angry. But then again, you always seem angry. Have any actual information to add to the discussion, or do you just need to drag your knuckles really low and scream a lot?

Sweetie a lot of you are on the down low, she makes a nice window dressing for you

.Angry? (smile)

It's the internet, I never get angry and you aren't intelligent enough to make me angry.

I did however notice you in no way dealt with the fact that you demand your "right" to buy your cake supersede the "right" of the Baker to choose not to sell it to you as he/she practices their religion.

And this is the moment where you completely lose the argument, lock, stock and barrel.

It's not about a "right". Your bellyaching was all for naught.

It's about the law of the land, and the execution thereof.

The PA laws are there for any adult to read.

It's not a moral issue, it's a legal issue. Pay attention and learn the difference.

I graciously accept your concession. Thank you for playing.

LOL.

Translation: " I win because I say I do and besides, you're just a big poopy head."

That's not the way life works little man, you are losing badly here and it irks you.

No. You lost because you never grasped the point to begin with.

You poor child (intellectually) on your best day you aren't up to a logical debate with even someone like franco.

Still hyperventilating, what?

I know it's a common illness among RWNJs.

 

[Coyote]

These Indiana legislators need to conduct a Balls Check...

To see if they still have theirs...

Because the issue is in grave doubt...

I agree.

It took no balls to write a law this hateful and cowardly.

It will take balls to correct it.

Oh, it took balls, alright, to write a law designed to stand up to the Gay Mafia.

Trouble is, more was required, and they lacked the courage of their convictions, and chickened-out.

Somewhere between the time that they crafted the Law and the time they folded, they lost a pair.

This law is part of a series of pre-packaged rightwing legislation put together by outside special interest groups and marketed to Republican run states. Pence, and his cohorts were elected to serve the people of Indiana. Given the huge negative reaction from within Indiana - one has to wonder if Pence & Co have a clue as to what their constituents want?

It's not the "courage of their convictions" that's at question, it's the courage of their ignorance.

This law was based on the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 co sponsored by Senator Schumer and signed into law by none other than President Clinton.

I've never viewed them as right wing

Here is the difference between the Federal law and the State law. They simply added "for profits" based on the ruling of the Supremes in favor of Hobby Lobby.

That win by the way by Hobby Lobby was based on the '93 RFRA law and the Justices expanded the law to include "for profits" have the right to have "religious" freedom.

A couple of other minor differences but #1 was the biggie that got the hysterics rolling.

I've seen a lot of garbage from left wingers over the years but nothing as wild and crazy and over the top as the bullshit and hysteria surrounding this law.

The clarification was appropriate given the rabid reaction of so many who never took the time to read the law. But the law stands. And as it should. 20 states over the years have passed their version of RFRA and there has been no mass hysteria but this Indiana one was seriously ginned up.

Here you go. Don't take my word for it.

1) Unlike the federal law, the Indiana bill explicitly protects the exercise of religion of entities, which includes for profit corporations.

The law

Another couple at link. Good article.

How Indiana s RFRA differs from federal version

I agree - the Indiana law was seriously ginned up and Arkansas, Georgia and some others had similar legislation lined up as well.

 

[tinydancer]

These Indiana legislators need to conduct a Balls Check...

To see if they still have theirs...

Because the issue is in grave doubt...

I agree.

It took no balls to write a law this hateful and cowardly.

It will take balls to correct it.

Oh, it took balls, alright, to write a law designed to stand up to the Gay Mafia.

Trouble is, more was required, and they lacked the courage of their convictions, and chickened-out.

Somewhere between the time that they crafted the Law and the time they folded, they lost a pair.

This law is part of a series of pre-packaged rightwing legislation put together by outside special interest groups and marketed to Republican run states. Pence, and his cohorts were elected to serve the people of Indiana. Given the huge negative reaction from within Indiana - one has to wonder if Pence & Co have a clue as to what their constituents want?

It's not the "courage of their convictions" that's at question, it's the courage of their ignorance.

This law was based on the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 co sponsored by Senator Schumer and signed into law by none other than President Clinton.

I've never viewed them as right wing

Here is the difference between the Federal law and the State law. They simply added "for profits" based on the ruling of the Supremes in favor of Hobby Lobby.

That win by the way by Hobby Lobby was based on the '93 RFRA law and the Justices expanded the law to include "for profits" have the right to have "religious" freedom.

A couple of other minor differences but #1 was the biggie that got the hysterics rolling.

I've seen a lot of garbage from left wingers over the years but nothing as wild and crazy and over the top as the bullshit and hysteria surrounding this law.

The clarification was appropriate given the rabid reaction of so many who never took the time to read the law. But the law stands. And as it should. 20 states over the years have passed their version of RFRA and there has been no mass hysteria but this Indiana one was seriously ginned up.

Here you go. Don't take my word for it.

1) Unlike the federal law, the Indiana bill explicitly protects the exercise of religion of entities, which includes for profit corporations.

The law

Another couple at link. Good article.

How Indiana s RFRA differs from federal version

I agree - the Indiana law was seriously ginned up and Arkansas, Georgia and some others had similar legislation lined up as well.

The legislators should have had the clarification in right from the very beginning that this law does not allow discrimination.

It just protects people from government over reach.

When everyone is so polarized these days and when social media can blow a situation out of proportion lickety split, all lawmakers need to make sure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

These Indiana legislators need to conduct a Balls Check...

To see if they still have theirs...

Because the issue is in grave doubt...

I agree.

It took no balls to write a law this hateful and cowardly.

It will take balls to correct it.

Oh, it took balls, alright, to write a law designed to stand up to the Gay Mafia.

Trouble is, more was required, and they lacked the courage of their convictions, and chickened-out.

Somewhere between the time that they crafted the Law and the time they folded, they lost a pair.

This law is part of a series of pre-packaged rightwing legislation put together by outside special interest groups and marketed to Republican run states. Pence, and his cohorts were elected to serve the people of Indiana. Given the huge negative reaction from within Indiana - one has to wonder if Pence & Co have a clue as to what their constituents want?

It's not the "courage of their convictions" that's at question, it's the courage of their ignorance.

Pence and Indiana republican lawmakers clearly have a clue as to what their constituents want.

Much of the legislation proposed in red states is indeed pre-packaged rightwing legislation put together by outside special interest groups, PACs, and other conservative lobbying entities – ALEC among the most infamous.