Stupid Republican idea of the day

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

Refusing to rest on their laurels after passing their creationism-in-public-schools legislation, Tennessee senators have approved a bill updating the abstinence based sex-ed law that would discourage "gateway sexual activity", naming such dangerous activities as "holding hands" and "kissing."

Tennessee Boy: "Say, Joan, I was wondering if I could kiss you."

Tennessee Girl: "Kissing! That's a gateway to pregnancy. Just put it in my butt."

[Dag Otto]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

Refusing to rest on their laurels after passing their creationism-in-public-schools legislation, Tennessee senators have approved a bill updating the abstinence based sex-ed law that would discourage "gateway sexual activity", naming such dangerous activities as "holding hands" and "kissing."

HA! Take that, Arizona!

[elucidator]

More Little League, clean wholesome activity! Always good to see a young boy get to first base!

[Jenaroph]

I know, two in one day probably isn't in the spirit of this thread, but this one's too fun to save till tomorrow:

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin suggests that it's time to look at impeaching Obama for such heinous crimes as: “[he] ignores the Constitution, he ignores the laws, he wants to impose all of the czars, he completely ignores the train wreck of the economy, which he’s causing with trillion-dollar-plus deficits every year you go along.”

Well, I never. Maybe one or two czars, they could let him get away with, but ALL the czars? Get him out of there.

[elucidator]

And if this all leads to a shortage of czars? A gulf, a czar chasm?

[Polycarp]

He wants to have a czar excission? Jack Dean Tyler would be mortified!

[Really Not All That Bright]

I'm sure we can outsource any number of our shadowy, unelected, unaccountable freedom-killing jobs to China.

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

Well, I never. Maybe one or two czars, they could let him get away with, but ALL the czars? Get him out of there.

First they imposed one or two of the czars, and I didn't speak up...

[jsc1953]

Can we go on a brief tangent to explain the whole "czar" thing? I see it in tea-bagger online comments, but of course it never comes up in any of the MSM media I peruse. So how many czars has Obama appointed? Do they all wear furry hats, long beards and crosses around their neck?

[Jenaroph]

It's just an informal title for an appointed official in charge of various governmental departments. Instead of saying some guy is the "Administrator, Federal Energy Administration, Assistant to the President for Energy Affairs, Executive Director of Energy Resources Council," which is his official title, he's the "Energy Czar."

First time I remember hearing about a president appointing a "czar" was Reagan and his "Drug Czar" back in the days of "Just Say No." Wikipedia says the use of the term for US Government appointees has been around since Wilson. It's fallen in and out of use since then. Now that Obama's the president, suddenly it means he's a friggin' COMMIE or something, and the appointment of government officials (like EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT has EVER DONE) is a PROBLEM.

[jsc1953]

I think Carter had an Energy Czar before Reagan had a Drug Czar.

But I was wondering about the volume of Czar's (as measured in russoliters, I guess)...has there been some explosion in quasi-cabinet-level administrative positions?

[gamerunknown]

Worse still, I heard on the BBC that he was getting a socialist from Hollande to depose the cosy czars.

At least, I think that's what they said with their crazy Britland accents.

[Jas09]

More than you could ever want to know about Executive Branch "czars": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_branch_czars

Upshot? Pretty much the same between GWB and Obama. Really all it tells us is that some time during the Bush administration it became acceptable to call any and every executive appointee a czar.

[Balance]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

...suddenly it means he's a friggin' COMMIE....

Unintended irony, thy name is "Tea Party".

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Somewhere, in passing, I heard the explanation, which was that the Communist Party identified some Democrats as "allies".

Mmmm hmmm. Let's remember that in the USA's most glorious moment, we allied with the commies to fight.... the fascists! We didn't become communists in the process, far from it. American history suggests fascists are even worse than communists, at least as a choice of friends. Any group in American politics today remind you of fascists? Anyone?

Wake me up when someone in Congress suggests abolishing the stock market so that all businesses may be converted into state-run entities.

[bup]

He must be directed to say stupid shit. He's taking one for the team so that other pubbies can call Democrats "socialist" and look reasonable.

[smithsb]

Teabagger nostalgia. I remember when they used to carry around signs with, "MORE CZARS THAN THE USSR". It was fruitless to point out to them that the USSR had done away with the whole Czar/Tsar thingy.

(And yes, I will use "teabagger" as long as "Obamacare" is bandied about.)

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by smithsb

I remember when they used to carry around signs with, "MORE CZARS THAN THE USSR". It was fruitless to point out to them that the USSR had done away with the whole Czar/Tsar thingy.

Or that the term had been applied to political appointees in every administration since Woodrow Wilson.

[Jack Batty]

Or that the USSR hasn't existed since 1991.

[Skammer]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

Or that the USSR hasn't existed since 1991.

Or Russian Czars since 1917, when they were eliminated by the Communists. That's right! Czars were actually anti-Communist! *tea party head asplodes*

[mkecane]

Originally Posted by Skammer

Or Russian Czars since 1917, when they were eliminated by the Communists. That's right! Czars were actually anti-Communist! *tea party head asplodes*

Wouldn't it be more likely to cave in?

[rogerbox]

The "czar" thing is really one of the stupidest things I have ever heard righties complain about. Does it gain traction with them simply because they think foreign sounding=bad or what?

[CannyDan]

Originally Posted by rogerbox

The "czar" thing is really one of the stupidest things I have ever heard righties complain about. Does it gain traction with them simply because they think foreign sounding=bad or what?

Short answer -- yes.

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by rogerbox

The "czar" thing is really one of the stupidest things I have ever heard righties complain about. Does it gain traction with them simply because they think foreign sounding=bad or what?

Plus their incredibly short memory helps them forget that GOP presidents have "czars" too. Or is it simply ignorance?

[rogerbox]

I'm wondering if it's a combo of foreign=bad and also, all government is bad so someone actually being in charge of something is also bad, in other words it offends starve the beasters.

[jsc1953]

Originally Posted by rogerbox

I'm wondering if it's a combo of foreign=bad and also, all government is bad so someone actually being in charge of something is also bad, in other words it offends starve the beasters.

That, plus it also sounds unaccountable. "Executive Director of Energy Resources Council" is just another harmless bureaucrat. But "Energy Czar" makes it sound like he's running amok, spending taxpayer money like water on vodka and caviar, accountable to no one, subject only to the whims of the president and thumbing his nose at Congress.

[gamerunknown]

What if the government incorporated itself with a four year corporate charter and declared itself as its own major shareholders?

That way they could do whatever they hell they wanted to line their pockets and the Republicans could only applaud them...

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

What if the government incorporated itself with a four year corporate charter and declared itself as its own major shareholders?

That way they could do whatever they hell they wanted to line their pockets and the Republicans could only applaud them...

Well, it would of course depend on whether he created jobs. And by creating jobs I of course mean offshoring all of the Treasury in a Caïman Island bank and offsourcing Congress to Viet-Nam because they law you long time at 5 cents a bill.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Truly awesome! Thanks for hunting that down and posting it for us all!

+1

I think I heard that for the first and only time in 1963. Funny what one remembers.

John Birch Society Song - Chad Mitchell Trio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG6ta...ayer_embedded#!

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

Refusing to rest on their laurels after passing their creationism-in-public-schools legislation, Tennessee senators have approved a bill updating the abstinence based sex-ed law that would discourage "gateway sexual activity", naming such dangerous activities as "holding hands" and "kissing."

That bill allows parents to sue. Presumably if their kid somehow finds out too much in sex ed.

That isn't very GOP-like. Whatever happened to torte reform and stopping nusiance lawsuits that are making all the crooked lawyers rich? I guess it's OK when you sue for something important(like excess knowledge), unlike say, equal pay for equal work.

[Morgyn]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

Refusing to rest on their laurels after passing their creationism-in-public-schools legislation, Tennessee senators have approved a bill updating the abstinence based sex-ed law that would discourage "gateway sexual activity", naming such dangerous activities as "holding hands" and "kissing."

Makes you wonder what they got up to in their younger years that they feel they have to pass laws discouraging it.

Or maybe it's jealousy of what they didn't get up to ...

[Gangster Octopus]

Tennessee probably should ban baseball broadcasts as well.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

I guess it's OK when you sue for something important(like excess knowledge), unlike say, equal pay for equal work.

Yep. Precisely why Pete Hoekstra (of the "China Girl" political ad fame) says the Lily Ledbetter Act is a "nuisance" law.

[MOIDALIZE]

I'm waiting for the laws establishing a curfew for everyone under 70 and requiring everyone to wear an onion on their belt.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Algher

If I thought they were being legit (which I do NOT):
1) Fight to keep the nepotism laws in effect
2) Reaction to Hillary's secret health care committee

In reality, it is partisan politics - but there is an argument that if the First Lady is going to be involved in running things, there should be some types of controls in place.

People Voted for Barrack, not Michelle.

I believe appointing the wifey is wrong.

[MOIDALIZE]

Did you just awake from a cryogenic sleep?

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

I'm waiting for the laws establishing a curfew for everyone under 70 and requiring everyone to wear an onion on their belt.

Well that was the style in those days, but today's young'uns have an entirely different array of fashion statements, like the notion that their waist line is midway between their knees and their nuts.

[Monty]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Actually, that reminds me, Romney supports a traditional definition of marriage and he's a Mormon. Clearly not "one man and one woman" then, eh?

You'd do far better if you actually knew what you're talking about. You might want to consider that advice as applying to your thread about Romney also.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

Whatever happened to torte reform <SNIP>

What's that? Is that where your cake layers fall apart while you're cooling them, and you have to cut them up into a bowl and make a trifle out of it?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Monty

You'd do far better if you actually knew what you're talking about. You might want to consider that advice as applying to your thread about Romney also.

Did Joseph Smith have a traditional marriage? Or did he have thirty-four traditional marriages?

Also, I've been reading the thread from the beginning for amusement and I'd like to point out that negating the status of illegal immigrants as "persons" contravenes Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Monty

You'd do far better if you actually knew what you're talking about. You might want to consider that advice as applying to your thread about Romney also.

So Romney has never supported a "traditional definition of marriage", using those words or those largely equivalent? I'm truly interested in that. If he has, then gamer's quote stands.

[Batfish]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

So Romney has never supported a "traditional definition of marriage", using those words or those largely equivalent? I'm truly interested in that. If he has, then gamer's quote stands.

Democrats have a multitude of legitimate personal and policy issues on which to oppose Romney's campaign for President.

"He's a Mormon!" isn't one of them.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Batfish

"He's a Mormon!" isn't one of them.

I don't think his faith is relevant until he starts making value judgements based on "traditions" and "definitions" that aren't even relevant to the "traditions" and "definitions" employed by his Church in its inception. I think if he wants to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, he has to renounce the rhetoric used to oppose gay marriage at least (and shift to either personal belief or Obama's position that it's a "struggle") or renounce those that do not practice the tradition that he longs to defend: namely those that are in homosexual or polygamous marriages.

[elucidator]

The LDS Church bailed out on polygamy a long, long time ago. It is not legitimate to infer that they support polygamy simply because they did at one time. For comparison's sake, the writings of Martin Luther reveal an appalling degree of antisemitism, a position the modern Lutheran Church rejects. It would not be legitimate to question a Lutheran candidate on the stance his Church took some hundreds of years ago.

[Shayna]

Bella Santorum, 3 years old and both physically and mentally challenged, is now an official member of the ...












Wait for it ...













































National Rifle Association. (video)

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by elucidator

For comparison's sake, the writings of Martin Luther reveal an appalling degree of antisemitism, a position the modern Lutheran Church rejects.

and if someone that was a high ranking Lutheran said that they believed in the tradition of strong links with Israel, it'd suddenly be very relevant. I'd be interested in whether they agreed with Martin Luther about whether denying the transubstantiation should be a capital offence too (only in passing though, as it would likely be irrelevant to their political platform). I don't think religions should get a pass when they can cohere so well on social issues and then ultimately reject them in a few generations. I've spoken to a Mormon that believes that the pronouncements from Joseph Smith were literally from the omniscient Godhead, as were those from Brigham Young (supporting and opposing polygamy, respectively).

I'd say the exact same thing about a Muslim candidate that used the same rhetoric when it is clear neither their holy book nor the practices of their prophet supports that use.

[74westy]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

and if someone that was a high ranking Lutheran said that they believed in the tradition of strong links with Israel, it'd suddenly be very relevant.

I suppose Obama is pro-slavery then because he's a Democrat?

[Monty]

Originally Posted by 74westy

I suppose Obama is pro-slavery then because he's a Democrat?

And I guess every Jew on the planet today is pro-polygamy.

gamerunknown has given new meaning to the terms stupid, inane, and asinine. Naw, strike that. His utter lack of thinking skills tarnishes even those words.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I'd be interested in whether they agreed with Martin Luther about whether denying the transubstantiation should be a capital offence too (only in passing though, as it would likely be irrelevant to their political platform).

My wife is a convert to Lutheranism and is a firm transubstantiationist. I think the church goes with consubstantiationism these days. I'm a solid "it's all symbolic" nonbeliever. We get around this by not discussing it, like good modern Lutherans.

I don't think religions should get a pass when they can cohere so well on social issues and then ultimately reject them in a few generations.

So churches can't be allowed to change their minds? Or their modern members can't disagree with their great-grandfathers? Where is the chronological cutoff? Never?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by 74westy

I suppose Obama is pro-slavery then because he's a Democrat?

I didn't plan to make a protracted defence of the genetic fallacy here. I'm just pointing out that when a person makes an appeal to tradition based in religious morality, it'd be handy if the progenitor of their religious morality actually engaged in that tradition. I'd be saying the exact same thing if Joseph Smith were in a gay marriage.

The analogy would hold up if the Democrats expelled members that expressed their abolitionist views.

Originally Posted by dropzone

So churches can't be allowed to change their minds?

I phrased that awkwardly. I was going to add a qualifier of some sort about their moral authority. I don't think the religious should claim that their doctrine is the revealed will of an omniscient being and then reject it when it becomes inimical to their chances of electoral success. They especially should not make appeals to that moral authority when their prophets did not adhere to the moral standards that they expect of their constituents.