The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5101  
Old 04-12-2012, 01:13 PM
Lobohan Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenaroph View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #5102  
Old 04-12-2012, 01:25 PM
Dag Otto Dag Otto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenaroph View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #5103  
Old 04-12-2012, 05:05 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
More Little League, clean wholesome activity! Always good to see a young boy get to first base!
Reply With Quote
  #5104  
Old 04-12-2012, 05:27 PM
Jenaroph Jenaroph is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
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 hes 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.
Reply With Quote
  #5105  
Old 04-12-2012, 05:33 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
And if this all leads to a shortage of czars? A gulf, a czar chasm?

Last edited by elucidator; 04-12-2012 at 05:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5106  
Old 04-12-2012, 05:37 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
He wants to have a czar excission? Jack Dean Tyler would be mortified!
Reply With Quote
  #5107  
Old 04-12-2012, 05:37 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
I'm sure we can outsource any number of our shadowy, unelected, unaccountable freedom-killing jobs to China.
Reply With Quote
  #5108  
Old 04-12-2012, 06:01 PM
Smapti Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 6,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenaroph View Post

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...
Reply With Quote
  #5109  
Old 04-12-2012, 06:04 PM
jsc1953 jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5110  
Old 04-12-2012, 06:22 PM
Jenaroph Jenaroph is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5111  
Old 04-12-2012, 06:28 PM
jsc1953 jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5112  
Old 04-12-2012, 06:37 PM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5113  
Old 04-12-2012, 06:58 PM
Jas09 Jas09 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5114  
Old 04-12-2012, 07:04 PM
Balance Balance is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 7,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenaroph View Post
...suddenly it means he's a friggin' COMMIE....
Unintended irony, thy name is "Tea Party".
Reply With Quote
  #5115  
Old 04-12-2012, 08:19 PM
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5116  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:03 AM
bup bup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5117  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:15 AM
smithsb smithsb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: mid-Pacific
Posts: 1,486
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.)
__________________
New and improved ideology - I'm now a mostly sane, liberal Republican, Bull Moose, Democrat, wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street.
Reply With Quote
  #5118  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:46 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithsb View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5119  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:48 AM
Jack Batty Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Or that the USSR hasn't existed since 1991.
Reply With Quote
  #5120  
Old 04-13-2012, 09:59 AM
Skammer Skammer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Music City USA
Posts: 12,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Batty View Post
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*
Reply With Quote
  #5121  
Old 04-13-2012, 10:03 AM
mkecane mkecane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skammer View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5122  
Old 04-13-2012, 10:16 AM
rogerbox rogerbox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5123  
Old 04-13-2012, 10:41 AM
CannyDan CannyDan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East coast of Florida
Posts: 2,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbox View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5124  
Old 04-13-2012, 10:49 AM
Revtim Revtim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbox View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5125  
Old 04-13-2012, 11:46 AM
rogerbox rogerbox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5126  
Old 04-13-2012, 11:51 AM
jsc1953 jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbox View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5127  
Old 04-13-2012, 11:56 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
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...
Reply With Quote
  #5128  
Old 04-13-2012, 01:17 PM
Kobal2 Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
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 Caman Island bank and offsourcing Congress to Viet-Nam because they law you long time at 5 cents a bill.
Reply With Quote
  #5129  
Old 04-13-2012, 03:26 PM
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
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#!
Reply With Quote
  #5130  
Old 04-13-2012, 04:58 PM
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenaroph View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5131  
Old 04-13-2012, 05:08 PM
Morgyn Morgyn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: In the time stream
Posts: 3,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenaroph View Post
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 ...
Reply With Quote
  #5132  
Old 04-13-2012, 05:09 PM
Gangster Octopus Gangster Octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Tennessee probably should ban baseball broadcasts as well.
Reply With Quote
  #5133  
Old 04-13-2012, 05:11 PM
xenophon41 xenophon41 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky View Post
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.

Last edited by xenophon41; 04-13-2012 at 05:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5134  
Old 04-13-2012, 05:27 PM
MOIDALIZE MOIDALIZE is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
I'm waiting for the laws establishing a curfew for everyone under 70 and requiring everyone to wear an onion on their belt.
Reply With Quote
  #5135  
Old 04-13-2012, 06:03 PM
dngnb8 dngnb8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algher View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5136  
Old 04-13-2012, 06:16 PM
MOIDALIZE MOIDALIZE is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Did you just awake from a cryogenic sleep?
Reply With Quote
  #5137  
Old 04-13-2012, 06:31 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5138  
Old 04-13-2012, 10:43 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5139  
Old 04-13-2012, 11:05 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 21,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5140  
Old 04-14-2012, 05:06 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
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.

Last edited by gamerunknown; 04-14-2012 at 05:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5141  
Old 04-14-2012, 05:30 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 23,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5142  
Old 04-14-2012, 06:19 AM
Batfish Batfish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5143  
Old 04-14-2012, 06:31 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5144  
Old 04-14-2012, 10:07 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5145  
Old 04-14-2012, 11:55 AM
Shayna Shayna is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
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)
Reply With Quote
  #5146  
Old 04-14-2012, 12:56 PM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5147  
Old 04-14-2012, 03:16 PM
74westy 74westy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5148  
Old 04-14-2012, 05:29 PM
Monty Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 17,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by 74westy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5149  
Old 04-14-2012, 06:00 PM
dropzone dropzone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 23,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
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.
Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5150  
Old 04-14-2012, 07:04 PM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.