But what if he has a pointed stick?
Maybe I missed something, but I don’t see anything in the story that supports that headline. He’s saying being “pro family” is being “pro life” (read: anti-abortion) and that this is good for the economy, but he doesn’t actually say that banning abortions will improve the Kansas economy.
I’m still trying to figure out how he managed to get re-elected, given the disaster Kansas has become.
So, did they stone the malefactor on the Sabbath? Wouldn’t gathering and throwing stones be considered performing work, much less putting someone to death? Is god saying that the only kind of work it’s okay to do on the Sabbath is killing someone for breaking a commandment? [NB: not a biblical scholar, not interested in being one, but curious.]
ETA: Say, was the guy even an Israelite, or just someone they found while wandering in the desert? If so, how do they justify killing someone for breaking a sacred law that he wouldn’t know or even care about?
AFAIK they didn’t have jails, so the only punishments were fines, exile, or execution. If it was an important commandment, it was execution.
How do we justify throwing people in jail today for cultivating the wrong type of plant, or (not so long ago) for refusing to kill total strangers in a far-off land, just because some old men (also total strangers) told you to kill them?
And a little longer ago, how did we justify enslaving an entire race? Oh wait, I know the answer to that one.
I heard a rumor there is this guy who lives in Kansas who really, really, really likes Brownback. He donated a couple bucks, possibly enough to make the difference.
Numbers, 15:32-36…
(Well, that’s what you asked for. If you meant “in modern times,” then I don’t believe it is much called for.)
OK, thanks. I did learn a lot of Exodus, years ago, but I think I got a little bored in the middle, and I’ve lived more years since then than I had lived before then.
They didn’t stone this guy to death on the SABBATH, did they?! 'Cause that seems like quite a lot of work to me.
In this time of record corporate profits, stagnant wage growth, and record inequality, Jeb Bush thinks it is a good idea to increase government subsidies for businesses by eliminating the federal minimum wage. I, for one, think this warrants inclusion in this thread.
Look, I get it, the free market is a good thing that efficiently distribute capital throughout the economy. Capitalism has done more to raise people out of poverty than any other socioeconomic system in history. But this does not change the fact that if people cannot find a way to make a living wage, they will require support from taxpayers. Either that, or they will come after us with pitchforks.
So what are we going to do? Should we reduce or eliminate the federally mandated minimum wage so that market forces can continue to drive down the price of the undifferentiated labor unit? This is what happens when corporations streamline their workforce and workers become a commodity, it is simple economics. Or should we attempt to make the corporations pay their fair share of the costs to keep their workers alive, fed, and healthy so I don’t have to? I just don’t get how this makes any kind of sense.
It makes sense when you understand that conservatives hate poor people and want them to suffer and then die (but most will not admit this, of course). And racists (who are often conservative) hate black and brown people (many of whom are poor) and want them to suffer and die (some will admit this but most conceal their racism among people who don’t share it).
Well, some of them seem to truly believe that being poor is just as much of a choice as being gay is, and if you are poor it is because of an unwillingness to work hard, and why should we subsidize the lazy?
Well, remember, Jeb Bush knows what it is like to be poor and struggling because he … oh, wait …
It’s this libertarian dream they all have. Get rid of regulations and let business do whatever it wants, everything will magically work out all fair and equal and no one will get exploited for profit. The only reason it hasn’t worked, is because we’re just not libertarian enough yet. All those poor & disabled will get off their lazy duffs, when they have to.
Does the age of the questioner even matter? 
Good job on the youngster in exposing a fraud.
One of my political pet peeves is when an adult politician can’t answer a kid’s question in a way that a kid could understand. If you can’t do that, not only are you being patronizing and clueless to the kid, but how are you going to explain your thoughts about complex issues to adults, esp. those who may disagree with you? I just hate it when someone who is supposed to be knowledgeable about something can’t explain it to somebody else. BZZT! Fail.
Dan Quayle had the same thing happen. He was being interviewed by an 11-year-old girl (because those kids will ask him softballs, right?) and she called him out on abortion.
I do kinda wonder whether the seven-year-old was prompted to ask the question by a parent or a teacher. Maybe he is more sophisticated than I was at that age. What do today’s seven-year-olds know about climate change?
It seems like a third of the country has about a first-grade level education, so Walker was working to shape his message to his own base. I have known plenty of 40y/os who were only marginally more intelligent than this 7y/o.
I would guess that following a scriptural injunction falls under the category of worship, not work.
Well-meaning, but ultimately I gotta file this one in the “stupid” box:
Glenn Beck is leaving the GOP because it’s not conservative enough.
He’s also thinking of leaving the NRA because Grover Norquist is an Islamist sleeper agent.
I am making up none of this.
It’s a tough road.
Palin was asked by a child what the Vice-President does, and was vilified for her reply, which I thought was in fact a kid-understandable and factually accurate – although certainly missing nuance – answer. Palin replied that the Vice-President is in charge of the Senate, and in fact that’s precisely the role the Constitution assign to the Vice-President: to serve as President of the Senate. Although modern practice makes it rare for the Vice-President to do so, he is constitutionally entitled to preside over the Senate every single day it’s in session.
That sounds like a big deal, but of course it’s not the President of the Senate, or the President Pro-Tem of the Senate, or the various senators who draw gavel duty, that wield any real power, and that’s the nuance that was missing. But Palin was unfairly disparaged for her answer.
Here, Walker is in a similar bind. I’m not sure what his actual positions on the issue are, but I agree his first answer was a poor attempt to generate a kid-friendly answer and ended up saying nothing intelligible. His second wasn’t much better.
I’m trying to think about how I would have handled it if I were he. Maybe: “I care very much about climate change, but not everyone agrees that the climate is changing because of what people do. After all, we once had woolly mammoths and an Ice Age, like the movie with Manny and Sid and their friends, and the world got warmer even though people back then didn’t have factories or drive SUVs. But I care very much about making sure the world’s natural resources are kept safe and used carefully, but still to benefit people that need gas to drive to work, to school, and to go shopping.”