Stupid Republican idea of the day

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Bricker

but how do you dismiss the people who are managing it today?

I would argue that the vast majority of people fall under one (or multiple) of these categories:

1) Going to a junior college. Cost are lower but so are job prospects upon graduation.

2) Getting parental assistance in some manner (room, food, etc)

3) Getting massive scholarships or Pell grants (the latter of which is rapidly shrinking thanks to Republicans)

4) Getting student loans

I added 4 in there because everyone does it. The number of people who attend a 5 year state-level or greater university with NO outside help, NO scholarships and NO student loans, who instead choose to forge it all alone is infintesimally small.
How, with no cites at my disposal, do I come to that conclusion?

Because if we postulate that tuition, room, food, supplies & clothes (remember, no help from anyone) for costs $25,000 average per year, then you're saying that this hypothetical student makes $25,000 per year at a job, minimum. If you can manage school full time and pay out of pocket for expenses at $25,000 you are so improbably rare you may not need college after all to be able to fulfill your dreams.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So I grant you that dismissing Ms. Foxx's experiences from 1968 may work, but how do you dismiss the people who are managing it today?

No-one has dismissed the people who do it today. But, for a lot of people who do it today, the fact is that they often end up in large amounts of debt. And, perhaps somewhat paradoxically, those who attend "cheaper" state schools are more likely to end up in huge amounts of debt than those who attend elite, expensive institutions.

I teach in the California State University system. Here in California, increases in tuition at state schools (UC and CSU) have far outstripped increases in wages over the past 40 years, and especially over the past 20. A while ago, i gathered figures on tuition costs and the California minimum wage and put together this table, which shows annual tuition costs for the UC and CSU systems, and the number of 8-hour days you need to work at minimum wage in order to pay one year of tuition.

Remember that these figures are for education expenses only, They take no account of living costs, textbooks, etc.:

Year	CA Min. Wage	UC	Days Work	CSU	Days Work

1965	$1.30		245	23.56		105	10.10
1966	$1.30		246	23.65		105	10.10
1967	$1.30		248	23.85		110	10.58	
1968	$1.65		331	25.08		133	10.08	
1969	$1.65		334	25.30		149	11.29	
1970	$1.65		487	36.89		161	12.20	
1971	$1.65		640	48.48		161	12.20	
1972	$1.65		644	48.79		161	12.20	
1973	$1.65		644	48.79		161	12.20	
1974	$2.00		646	40.38		194	12.13	
1975	$2.00		647	40.44		194	12.13	
1976	$2.50		648	32.40		195	9.75	
1977	$2.50		706	35.30		195	9.75	
1978	$2.65		720	33.96		212	10.00	
1979	$2.90		736	31.72		210	9.05	
1980	$3.10		776	31.29		226	9.11	
1981	$3.35		997	37.20		319	11.90	
1982	$3.35		1,300	48.51		505	18.84	
1983	$3.35		1,387	51.75		692	25.82	
1984	$3.35		1,324	49.40		658	24.55	
1985	$3.35		1,326	49.48		666	24.85	
1986	$3.35		1,345	50.19		680	25.37	
1987	$3.35		1,492	55.67		754	28.13	
1988	$4.25		1,554	45.71		815	23.97	
1989	$4.25		1,634	48.06		839	24.68	
1990	$4.25		1,820	53.53		920	27.06	
1991	$4.25		2,486	73.12		1,080	31.76	
1992	$4.25		3,044	89.53		1,460	42.94	
1993	$4.25		3,727	109.62		1,604	47.18	
1994	$4.25		4,111	120.91		1,853	54.50	
1995	$4.25		4,139	121.74		1,891	55.62	
1996	$4.75		4,166	109.63		1,935	50.92	
1997	$5.15		4,212	102.23		1,946	47.23	
1998	$5.75		4,037	87.76		1,871	40.67	
1999	$5.75		3,903	84.85		1,830	39.78	
2000	$5.75		3,964	86.17		1,839	39.98	
2001	$6.25		3,859	77.18		1,876	37.52	
2002	$6.75		4,017	74.39		2,005	37.13	
2003	$6.75		5,530	102.41		2,572	47.63	
2004	$6.75		6,312	116.89		2,916	54.00	
2005	$6.75		6,802	125.96		3,164	58.59	
2006	$6.75		6,852	126.89		3,199	59.24	
2007	$7.50		7,517	125.28		3,521	58.68	
2008	$8.00		8,027	125.42		3,849	60.14	
2009	$8.00		9,311	145.48		4,893	76.45	
2010	$8.00		11,279	176.23		5,390	84.22	
2011	$8.00		13,218	206.53		6,422	100.34

As you can see, as recently as 2002 it took fewer than 38 days at minimum wage to pay for a year at CSU; now it takes over 100 (that's 20 five-day weeks), and that's going to go up again this year. The UC system now requires 41 five-day weeks of work at minimum wage, just to pay tuition. Given that many students can only get minimum-wage of near-minimum-wage jobs, this is, i believe, a fairly reasonable indicator of the challenges that college students face.

Plenty of other states are in a similar position, with decreasing state support for public education leaving students to foot dramatically increasing bills. Leaving aside altogether the question of whether this shift in the model of education funding is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, for a legislator to come out in such an environment and say that she has "very little tolerance" for people who graduate with large debts, "because there’s no reason for that," shows willful ignorance and stupidity, IMO.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Everyone's experiences are just the same as mine. If I succeeded, then so can anyone, regardless of the circumstances or their background.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone make this argument.

I can't see where anybody made a claim that it has been made (in so many words). Frankly, I think you were in a better position in your earlier post, where you impugned the validity of Euphonious Polemic's summaries. At least then, you were disagreeing with them, and allowing for them to be characterized as summaries. With the above, and this:

Originally Posted by Bricker

I've made a superficially similar one: if I succeeded, it's proof that it was possible to succeed. "So can anyone..." has never been a part of what I've said.

you're setting up a straw man, and then having a whack at it.

Originally Posted by Bricker

So what's the real underlying expectation here? Are we trying to say that this is wrong, that people should succeed despite any inherent skill limitations they have?

I'll not claim to be speaking for anyone else here, but I'll admit to an underlying expectation that it would be nice for "success" to be more broadly assessed, such that a decent standard of living can be earned by a single breadwinner/homeowner for his (or her) family of dependents without requiring an advanced degree, or even a bachelor's.

And achievable. In addition to "nice," I admit to an underlying expectation that it should be achievable.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

I would argue that the vast majority of people fall under one (or multiple) of these categories:

1) Going to a junior college. Cost are lower but so are job prospects upon graduation.

2) Getting parental assistance in some manner (room, food, etc)

3) Getting massive scholarships or Pell grants (the latter of which is rapidly shrinking thanks to Republicans)

4) Getting student loans

I added 4 in there because everyone does it. The number of people who attend a 5 year state-level or greater university with NO outside help, NO scholarships and NO student loans, who instead choose to forge it all alone is infintesimally small.
How, with no cites at my disposal, do I come to that conclusion?

Because if we postulate that tuition, room, food, supplies & clothes (remember, no help from anyone) for costs $25,000 average per year, then you're saying that this hypothetical student makes $25,000 per year at a job, minimum. If you can manage school full time and pay out of pocket for expenses at $25,000 you are so improbably rare you may not need college after all to be able to fulfill your dreams.

Agreed.

And why is this bad?

What is the contrary proposal, or what is it that we need to fix?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

. With the above, and this:
you're setting up a straw man, and then having a whack at it.

True enough. It's not a complete fabrication, because I have had similar conversations in other threads where the subjects have also been raised, but yes, I agree that here I offered up... er... an alternative specific formula to debate.

Or strawman.

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Agreed.

And why is this bad?

What is the contrary proposal, or what is it that we need to fix?

Well, what we need to fix is the rise in educational costs as it relates to inflation and the ratio between the cost of education vs. the benefits of that education in increased salary.

But we're not debating educational fixes. For that, we should move it to GD.

What we're debating is whether Representative Foxx understands and accepts reality (My vote is no.) Reality is that her experiences from 43 years ago cannot be applied to today's students. Reality is that 99.9% of students today either a) get a lot of help or b) get a lot of debt. The pay-as-you-go approach is simply not feasible and it's obscene for Foxx to discount all those students in part B as unworthy.

[Rhythmdvl]

I thought we were debating whether God cheats at poker.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I don't agree with either of these summaries.

A personal story is generally presented to rebut the inference that whatever achievement under discussion is well-nigh impossible.

There are people - here and IRL, who certainly disparage folks who do not succeed, because they themselves managed success. They do not take into account differing circumstances that led to (or detract from) success.

I did not say that you do it. It is a fairly common failing seen among many however.

Likewise, it is quite common to hear folks (again, not you, so stop taking it personally), who talk about how getting ahead is so, so easy. And they don't seem to know that finding a job today is not the same thing as finding a job 40 years ago.

Folks like this tend to be on the right of the political spectrum. They believe in rugged individualism, and scoff at people getting help from the state. These are things that I regularly hear from these folks:

"I made it, so why can't he?" (Because unlike you, he was molested by his step father and grew up on the streets)

" Those guys should just get a job - I did". (Yes, back in the day when unemployment was at 4%, and organizations were begging people to apply)

"Go get an education. I managed to do it, and I was poor" (Right, but that was 40 years ago, when education was much more affordable)

They just have no concept that others may have different backgrounds, or that times are not the same as they once were. Representative Foxx is just such a person.

[Smapti]

Miami-Dade fire department captain writes a Facebook post blames the Trayvon Martin shooting on the "failed, shitbag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents" of "urban youths".

At what point does a dog whistle become a bullhorn?

[Skammer]

I predict there will be a job opening for a fire captain in Dade County very shortly.

[Johanna]

Michelle Bachmann: "What we want is women to be able to make their own choices… for their own bodies"

According to Bachmann, Democrats are trying to take away women's healthcare choices, while Republicans are trying to free them. This from someone who wants to restrict reproductive choice and access to contraceptives. OK, this is way over into "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" territory.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Johanna

Michelle Bachmann: "What we want is women to be able to make their own choices… for their own bodies"

According to Bachmann, Democrats are trying to take away women's healthcare choices, while Republicans are trying to free them. This from someone who wants to restrict reproductive choice and access to contraceptives. OK, this is way over into "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength" territory.

Black is White. Accuse the opposition of being what you are. SOP for the GOP these days. Apparently this will be a lasting legacy from Carl Rove.

[elucidator]

Whenever I see one of those stories about the variety of firm convictions held by Mitt Tirebiter, I flash back to the Republican convention that re-nominated Bush against Kerry, how they had all those "Purple Heart" bandaids. Which was weird enough, till I saw that a lot of them had one of a pair of zoris, which they would wave about and chant "flip-flop! flip-flop!" about Kerry.

Pure Essence of Turdblossom. The essential Karl Rove. I'm told he goes to church, I wonder if he thinks he's going to Heaven.

[vivalostwages]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Whenever I see one of those stories about the variety of firm convictions held by Mitt Tirebiter

snip.

Tirebiter?

[elucidator]

I was going to reference Musil's Man Without Qualities, but that seemed pretentious, and some asshole would bust me for it. So I went with Firesign Theater. Obscure enough to be snottily hip.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Miami-Dade fire department captain writes a Facebook post blames the Trayvon Martin shooting on the "failed, shitbag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents" of "urban youths".

At what point does a dog whistle become a bullhorn?

All I can think is the boil of racism on America's butt badly needed to be lanced, and now that it apparently has been, the amount of poison spurting out into the open is ghastly.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by vivalostwages

Tirebiter?

He's a spy and a girl delighter.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Miami-Dade fire department captain writes a Facebook post blames the Trayvon Martin shooting on the "failed, shitbag, ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents" of "urban youths".

At what point does a dog whistle become a bullhorn?

I know the Martin case has largely (but not exclusively) fallen along party lines, but is that all there is to suggest this belongs in SRIatD?

[Punoqllads]

Hear, hear, Rhythmdvl. Let's keep this thread on topic.

Speaking of which, according to Tony Perkins the Secret Service prostitution scandal was caused by "...military enforcing open homosexuality". I had not heard that the military was requiring all those enlisted to be openly homosexual. Apparently this is Sparta.

[Boyo Jim]

So now straight people have to go in the closet? That's some pretty funny shit, right there.

[Boyo Jim]

Hey, I see the "Stupid Liberal..." thread is up to nearly 700 posts, and this is around 5,200. Yeah, that seems about the right ratio.

[elucidator]

What is it, about twenty five percent curlcoat?

[Boyo Jim]

Haven't looked that closely in a while. Clothahump started it, and the OP is a doozy.

[digs]

The Stoopid Lib'rul thread would be a lot shorter if it was confined to actual criticism. But we just had curlcoat and mister nyx sniping back and forth for three pages.

from that thread:

I've got an even stupider idea: create the curlcoat show thread, and every time a thread turns into a cc show (this isn't the first I've seen certainly) then it can go to the cc show thread, and the argument wouldn't even have to continue, since its all already happened before. I am almost positive some other thread has been derailed for exactly this same discussion with cc.

I enjoy both the stupid liberal and stupid republican threads. At least when they haven't been hijacked.

[foolsguinea]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/1...ting-the-left/

After being questioned about crime at the “Occupy” protests, she said that all she knew was that the movement was about “vandalism and rape.”

“What are you about if not those things?” she said. “What are you here for? What are you involved in the Occupy movement for?”

[elucidator]

"OK, guys, now try to remember this time. Its ravage, plunder, rape, and then burn!"

[Gyrate]

"Qualifications?"

"Rape, murder, arson, and rape."

"You said rape twice."

"I like rape."

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Hey, I see the "Stupid Liberal..." thread is up to nearly 700 posts, and this is around 5,200. Yeah, that seems about the right ratio.

Actually, the "Stupid Liberal" thread, like this one, is mostly about Stupid Republican ideas.

Blame me for the numbers if you wish. If I'd known score was kept, I'd not have padded out the other thread with posts like this one:

Originally Posted by septimus

A Democrat State Senator in Oklahoma has proposed an amendment to a personhood bill:

She withdrew the amendment after her betters pointed out that this denies men control over their own bodies. Still, what will liberals think of next?

The same news article mentions that

It doesn't say explicitly whether Howell has the Big D-for-Dumb by her name, but we all know it's the liberal donkeys who are statist and authoritarian, so I'll bet that way.

(BTW, I'm sure those of us who believe in the Rights of Life are proud that American legislators are finally recognizing that human life begins with a healthy ovum. But that ovum will die unless it is fertilized. I hope these laws are written to make clear that women who fail to fertilize their healthy ova are committing manslaughter.)

The idea that an ovulating woman is committing manslaughter if she refuses impregnation attempts seems extreme, but also a consequence of some recent Republican legislation.... I wonder if any Republican politicians are trying out this line on their aides?

[silenus]

Originally Posted by septimus

I wonder if any Republican politicians are trying out this line on their aides?

The aides most Republicans would want to screw don't have ovaries.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by septimus

The idea that an ovulating woman is committing manslaughter if she refuses impregnation attempts seems extreme, but also a consequence of some recent Republican legislation.... I wonder if any Republican politicians are trying out this line on their aides?

Under "Stand Your Ground" legislation you're allowed to kill the ovum if you felt under sufficient threat from it.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Under "Stand Your Ground" legislation you're allowed to kill the ovum if you felt under sufficient threat from it.

Unless it's been fertilized. Then it's sacrosanct until birth (or sometimes until failure to implant, but that sorta depends on whether it's lab-grown and/or will be used in stem cell therapy). (Republican rules are complicated.)

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Everyone's experiences are just the same as mine. If I succeeded, then so can anyone, regardless of the circumstances or their background.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone make this argument.

Then you haven't been paying attention. A statement of contempt (e.g. "I have very little tolerance for...") for failure to do X indicates that anyone, with few if any exceptions, is normally expected to be capable of doing X.

For example, only a pretentious snob would profess "very little tolerance" for people who fail to keep track of the minutiae of food service at a fancy dinner, but most of us would have "very little tolerance" for somebody who picks up a serving dish at dinner and starts lapping out of it like a dog.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Bricker

And it's true that things today have changed... but that doesn't account for people that are, today, putting themselves through school. So I grant you that dismissing Ms. Foxx's experiences from 1968 may work, but how do you dismiss the people who are managing it today?

Those people are graduating with $80k in student debt, and not thrilled about it. Ms. Foxx is saying she has no sympathy for people with lots of student loan debt. That is, of course, her prerogative, but it is the prerogative of everyone else to call her stupid. This has nothing to do with whether people are succeeding.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

I know the Martin case has largely (but not exclusively) fallen along party lines, but is that all there is to suggest this belongs in SRIatD?

He's not a registered voter, for what it's worth.

[BigAppleBucky]

OK thing for your campaign manager or wife to say, but when the candidate says it himself, voters may ask themselves the question: "Does this person have all his marbles? Is he paranoid?"

Not as bad as Newt's space station on Mars promise, but more than a little bit weird.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

Originally Posted by dropzone

He's a spy and a girl delighter.

Stop singing, and finish your homework!

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

OK thing for your campaign manager or wife to say, but when the candidate says it himself, voters may ask themselves the question: "Does this person have all his marbles? Is he paranoid?"

Then the voters have to ask themselves "Am I actually PART of the vast leftwing conspiracy?" The conspiracy could be big. Really big. Like maybe even 55% of the voting public.

That Obama is so sneaky. He's going to involve the actual voting public in his conspiracy to get elected!

[jsgoddess]

GOP Senate candidate says:

"But in Monongalia County now, I have to put a huge sticker on my buildings to say this is a smoke-free environment. This is brought to you by the government of Monongalia County. Okay?" he said. "Remember Hitler used to put Star of David on everybody’s lapel, remember that? Same thing."

A fitting headline on the sidebar: "Catastrophic Brain Injuries at All-Time High in High School Football." And politics.

[elucidator]

I bet "Monongalia" is one of those Indian word place names, and means "lady parts" in Cree or Cherokee.

[Johanna]

Nope. Monongalia is a pseudo-Latinate coinage based on the name of the Monongahela River, from Lenape Menaonkihela which means 'it has high banks that erode and collapse'. It's a warning to anyone who goes there. Indian place names are practical.

[Gyrate]

It's only a matter of time before the government starts rounding up buildings and shipping them off to concentration cities.

[gamerunknown]

So, I read the thread over a few days. I copy and pasted some stuff, but I forgot to get the posters, so it'll be unattributed.

Many, perhaps most republicans neither practice nor condone child beating.

I can think of three conservative reasons for supporting it. The first is the just world viewpoint. Someone does something wrong, they're punished, they stop doing the wrong thing. Never mind the research suggesting that authoritarian parenting and corporal punishment are ineffective at achieving anything except immediate cessation of nuisance behaviour.

The second is Biblical morality (spare the rod) - criminals were just spoiled, petulant children.

The third was already mentioned, that it increases federal oversight. Link leads to the Republican's opposition to a bill that prevents restraints being used in schools.

Originally Posted by Steve King

pretty soon its a national curriculum with federal mandates, and imposing cultural impositions [sic] at the school level in every accredited district in the country.

Corporate personhood is a legal concept, reinforced by Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission which determined that campaign finance laws limiting donations by corporate entities prevented their free speech since they were legally a person. Their personhood is a means of restricting liability as far as I'm aware - it's not written in stone either. There have been attempts to redefine a corporation's primary legal responsibility as being to its stakeholders rather than shareholders (obviously not emanating from the freshwater schools), which seems to me to be just as valid a concept and probably far less harmful to the areas they operate.

Richard John Santorum anagrams to (with liberal punctuation) "O Christ, run, hardon jam!"

If the first lady is the honorary head of the girl scouts, then wouldn't she be the queen of tarts?

A recurrent theme in the thread is anti-gay Republicans being outed inadvertently. Was there a similar process with "exotic" brothels and Southern Democrats during the civil rights movement?

How dare you neglect your children by being a single parent!

Perhaps if they're so concerned, they can mandate that single parents marry unwed legislators? I suppose that'd be an undue burden on single parents in Republican controlled areas though.

[quoteTake a look at Pound someday. [/quote]

Or D. H. Lawrence for that matter (I had him pegged as more libertarian until I learned about his politics).

Just out of curiosity, because my knowledge of history sucks, at what point did people coming over to the US from other countries have to apply for the privilege? That is, when in our history did people's parents become illegals?

This excellent lecture by Aviva Chomsky details some of that.

"We're Republican by registration, but I'd even vote for a communist right now if they would start to change the way we're running the country." [Tea Party Volunteer Norman] Halfpenny said, adding he thinks Democrats in power are leading the nation towards socialism, a Tea Party lament.

Perhaps we can appeal directly to these people? There is, after all, a way to end illegal immigration overnight...

What's next, making it mandatory for women to turn in their used menses paraphernalia for inspection?

Sounds kind of like a reading, perhaps results could be published in a psychics periodical?

get ready for a new way to go live, one on one, with hot horny girls waiting right now to talk to you

About fiscal responsibility or family values? That's one way to stimulate the economy I guess.

You know, way back when, there were some people who asserted that this was a very, very bad idea and would entail such ghastly consequences as we have seen.

They don't sound very patriotic to me. I doubt they were even monarchists!

As for Gingrich's plan for child labour: it doesn't matter how innocuous it seems when suggested, it will ultimately lead to widened class divisions. There are certain sectors where employers would prefer children due to the fact that they're less likely to have dependants than be dependants and inherently command lower wages. The most effective retirement strategy is to continuously produce such workers, as one's own chances of employment are rescinded as one ages and there are no welfare programs for the industrial reserve army in place to guarantee comfort should one have only a few children. Burgeoning lower class and greater accumulation of capital - wealth trends upwards even with progressive taxation. People like Nozick recognise this as a corollary of true property rights and accept it, since it is traditional, hierarchical and the natural course of history. Tariffs, unions and regulations are all artificial, but the concept of property and rent are inherent. Equality of opportunity is a misnomer. Anyone seriously suggesting it would have to eradicate individual inheritance and advocate kibbutzim.

I'm concerned about Prayers of Mass Destruction getting into the wrong hands.

I actually pondered this for a moment, then I realised there is an undisproveable clause to the notion. One's prayers are to an omnipotent deity that will aid one in crushing one's enemy. One's enemies prayers are neutered since they don't make the proper propitiations. They can use essentially identical wording, but they're still carrying blanks.

Remember, to some people what was going on with the whole Berlin Wall thing was a GOOD thing.

That's a good point. Perhaps we need to hire some ex-KGB to plant mines along the Mexico border? We don't want to cause brain drain from there, do we?

Final quote:

Originally Posted by Dinesh D'Souza

The reason that society privileges marriage and gives it a special legal status is because marriage is the only known incubator for the raising of children.

His ex-fiance, Laura Ingraham, adopted a child while they were dating and is now raising the child on her own, lol.

I've come to the conclusion from this thread that it's harder for Democrats to be hypocrites. Perhaps they could secretly carry a baby to full term after having missionary position sex in marriage? Pray in school? Rat on an illegal immigrant? Invade a foreign country?

[Skammer]

Colbert's "Word of the Day" the other night was "Gateway Hug," a poke at Tennessee legislatures who have expanded our abstinence-based sex education in this state to prohibit teaching or demonstrating "gateway sexual activity" such as hugging and kissing or holding hands.

Between that and all the other Tennessee contributions to this thread I'm getting tired of this state being a laughingstock. Just off the top of my head in the past few months, our legislature:
-- ended collective bargaining for school teachers
-- struck down Nashville's anti-gay-discrimination law
-- protected the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools
-- instituted a strict voter ID law
-- expanded the abstinence sex education curriculum to include "gateway activities"
-- expanded assault and homicide laws to specifically include crimes against embryos
-- voted to allow concealed weapon carry in bars and state and local parks

Some of these are more outrageous than others (I'm sure folks will defend the expansion of gun rights as perfectly reasonable). But these are just the ones that I thought of off the top of my head. And I haven't checked the Tennessean today for any fresh Hell.

[rogerbox]

It seems like since social and fiscal conservative policies directly correlate to states that are hellholes, the only explanation for conservativism is hate.

[otternell]

I just had an epiphany:
The GOP claim that Obama is ruining the country is absolutely true. Look at all the crazy laws the GOP absolutely must institute because of Obama, and how those laws are destroying the country.

Holy shit, talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm still not quite sure I understand why they must institute these crazy laws because of Obama, but I'm sure they have a good reason.

[jsc1953]

The Oklahoma personhood bill died without coming to a vote. This is despite the fact that Republicans control both chambers and the Governorship.

Perhaps they met in a smoke-filled room and said to one another...."what the hell are we doing?"

[Lamar Mundane]

Mitt Romney: "Had the president's economic plans worked, this factory would be open right now." The factory closed in 2008, when Bush was president.

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2...tional-gypsum/

[jsc1953]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

Mitt Romney: "Had the president's economic plans worked, this factory would be open right now." The factory closed in 2008, when Bush was president.

http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2...tional-gypsum/

If he had said "this factory would have re-opened by now", then he would have at least a leg to stand on. But he didn't.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Skammer

voted to allow concealed weapon carry in bars and state and local parks

Now, I'm conflicted. If by public house, you mean the centre of licentiousness and anti-Christian socialising featuring that immoral drink, whiskey, at the expense of government regulations, then by all means, we should fully support second amendment rights. To the extend that there will be no more public houses left, nor any public officials. However, if by public house, you mean that last aegis against the nanny state interfering with American patriots and acting all prissy about their health decisions, where repealing the 21st amendment would just be another way big government hampers the free market... Then hell nahw, you can't take my guns away!

[jsgoddess]

Wha?