I bet “Monongalia” is one of those Indian word place names, and means “lady parts” in Cree or Cherokee.
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.
It’s only a matter of time before the government starts rounding up buildings and shipping them off to concentration cities.
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.
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.
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?
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).
This excellent lecture by Aviva Chomsky details some of that.
Perhaps we can appeal directly to these people? There is, after all, a way to end illegal immigration overnight…
Sounds kind of like a reading, perhaps results could be published in a psychics periodical?
About fiscal responsibility or family values? That’s one way to stimulate the economy I guess.
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 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.
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:
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?
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.
It seems like since social and fiscal conservative policies directly correlate to states that are hellholes, the only explanation for conservativism is hate.
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. :rolleyes:
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?”
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.
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.
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!
Wha?
It’s meant to be an incoherent, rambling, “if by whisky” speech riffing on the fact that Tea Party people don’t like “public” institutions and the conflict that’d arise if increased government regulations threatened a public institution.
I don’t know how well known the “If by whiskey” speech is. In case it’s unfamiliar:
[QUOTE=Texas or Mississippi Representative named Sweat, allegedly]
I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey.
If you mean whiskey, the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean that evil drink that topples Christian men and women from the pinnacles of righteous and gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, shame, despair, helplessness, and hopelessness, then, my friend, I am opposed to it with every fiber of my being.
However, if by whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the elixir of life, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer, the stimulating sip that puts a little spring in the step of an elderly gentleman on a frosty morning; if you mean that drink that enables man to magnify his joy, and to forget life’s great tragedies and heartbreaks and sorrow; if you mean that drink the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars each year, that provides tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitifully aged and infirm, to build the finest highways, hospitals, universities, and community colleges in this nation, then my friend, I am absolutely, unequivocally in favor of it.
This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think there’s much question of the speech’s provenance. It was delivered by then-Representative Noah Sweat on the floor of the Mississippi House in 1952. There was a chain e-mail attributing it to an apparently fictional “Armon Sweat”, Texas Representative, though. There are no “Political Archives of Texas”.
I double checked. Neither an “Armon” nor a “Sweat” ever sat in the Texas legislature.
But he did serve in the MIssissippi legislature.
I think the first guy was from the Texas 22nd until about 2006.
Missouri House: ACA implementation a crime
If it turns out you can’t beat the Affordable Care Act in court; you can make it, somehow???, illegal.
In other news, Tennessee lawmakers have introduced legislation to take girls out of school at age 12, wear veils and full length black outer garments.
One of the above is, “not intended to be a factual statement.” - Senator Jon Kyl.
Here’s another link to the story.
I do see that federal workers in Missouri who try to implement ACA will only be guilty of a misdemeanor. Who says Republicans don’t compromise? They could have made it a felony.