Stupidity; thy name is Texas GOP

[shagdrum]

Just...stupid

A few days old, but making the rounds today on the right side of Twitter. In case you’re keeping score on the great Republican “values” battle: Huckabee 1, Daniels 0.

The GOP there has voted on a platform that would ban oral and anal sex. It also would give jail sentences to anyone who issues a marriage license to a same-sex couple (even though such licenses are already invalid in the state)…

In addition, the platform says that homosexuality “tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit and leads to the spread of dangerous communicable diseases.”…

The 25-page proposal, presented last week as a guide for the state GOP over the next two years, includes other measures including outlawing “sexually oriented businesses” like strip clubs and banning “all pornography.”​

Here’s the platform in PDF form. I can’t find last year’s version online to see whether the “values” rhetoric is something new or whether it’s standard operating procedure from year to year, but based on this lefty commentary from 2008, sure sounds like it’s the latter. The news here, in other words, isn’t that Texas is trending towards social conservatism, it’s that it’s not trending towards libertarianism despite the influence of people like Glenn Beck and Ron Paul and the greater priority given to fiscal issues by the righty base since The One took office. But then, is Texas really the place you’d expect to see a libertarian trend show up in the platform? A deep red state will have enough traditional conservatives to keep the platform traditionally conservative; it’s the purple-state GOPs, where views on social issues might tilt a bit more blue, that are ripe for the capturing by libertarians.

Needless to say, consider this a prelude to the inevitable wrangling over the next national Republican platform. The last one, passed in 2008, was notably less hardline about “values” than the new one from Texas, but that’s what happens when you fight on a big purple battlefield instead of a smaller red one. Exit quotation from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas, a libertarian outfit: “The Republican Liberty Caucus believes that cutting government spending is more important than wasting our limited resources on policies that open Texas to lawsuits and treat some citizens in a different manner than other citizens. Texas RLC members believe divisive social issues should be put on the back burner and instead the focus should be on solving real problems.”​

I am really starting to resent Republicans at the state level. At the national level, the can only go so far as basically being constitutionally, God-fearing Libertarians. But at the state level you get idiotic moral busy-bodies who ignore the political principles they ascribe too and work to impose their morals from the top down.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience
-C.S. Lewis​

 

[fossten]

Yeah I'm not down with that. I mean, come on...oral sex against the law? What are you people thinking?

 

[shagdrum]

Yeah I'm not down with that. I mean, come on...oral sex against the law? What are you people thinking?

 

[04SCTLS]

This is why conservative republicans are regarded with suspicion and a threat to our freedoms.

 

[fossten]

This is why conservative republicans are regarded with suspicion and a threat to our freedoms.

I doubt this is representative of the GOP as a whole, but nevertheless, this is why I tend to align myself with the libertarians.

 

[04SCTLS]

I doubt this is representative of the GOP as a whole, but nevertheless, this is why I tend to align myself with the libertarians.

It may not be but it's a masked sentiment amongst the fundamentalists that is always budding to get out.

I suppose I'm a libertarian.
Real conservatives are good with money but liberals have more fun.
So I'm somewhere in between.

 

[shagdrum]

This is why conservative republicans are regarded with suspicion and a threat to our freedoms.

This is not consistent with conservatism, and at the federal level nothing like this would fly.

Still, you are right. Idiots doing things like this give conservatism a bad name; especially in a political climate like today, where that nation is moving more and more toward a libertarian/classical liberal position. While this may appease some local constituency (which is probably why the Texas GOP did it), on a bigger scale, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Missouri and Kansas also have the problem of these "Conservative" moral busy-bodies, unfortunately.

 

[04SCTLS]

This is not consistent with conservatism, and at the federal level nothing like this would fly.

Still, you are right. Idiots doing things like this give conservatism a bad name; especially in a political climate like today, where that nation is moving more and more toward a libertarian/classical liberal position. While this may appease some local constituency (which is probably why the Texas GOP did it), on a bigger scale, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Missouri and Kansas also have the problem of these "Conservative" moral busy-bodies, unfortunately.

Kind of flies in the face of intelligent design if these are the specimens produced

 

[shagdrum]

Kind of flies in the face of intelligent design if these are the specimens produced

funny...

It is a reflection of political ignorance.

 

[foxpaws]

Still, you are right. Idiots doing things like this give conservatism a bad name; especially in a political climate like today, where that nation is moving more and more toward a libertarian/classical liberal position.

Is it shag? I suppose we might have some evidence when the results are in this fall - but could it be that this is just the loudest of the groups? Are libertarians really gathering steam? Polls are hard to evaluate in this case - because if you just ask - do you want smaller government/less spending you will get yes answers. However, when you delve deeper - people really don't want less spending as a whole - they want those massive programs like SS to stay in place. If every candidate that embraced some libertarian values came out and said that SS needs to be scrapped - I think you would find very few of them would be elected.

The answers aren't simple - but polls have a tendency to ask simple questions.

I also read something interesting recently - I'll have to dig up the link - about how polling, and the constant reporting of polling, skews polls. If you report that the war is popular with over 70% of the people, there is a tendency for the next poll to be even more in favor of war, if all other factors remain the same, and the only difference is a large media push that reports the findings of the poll. People hear about the first poll, and since people have a tendency to 'follow' they think that the war must be OK if so many people are for it. Without any other influence, other than 'other people are for it, so it must be OK', people will poll with a clear cut majority.

And on another note - No oral sex? Like foss said - what are these people thinking? Where are they finding that is bad? Is there a biblical reference on this? I think it will be hard to be elected on the 'Banning and criminalizing oral sex' platform.

 

[04SCTLS]

And on another note - No oral sex? Like foss said - what are these people thinking? Where are they finding that is bad? Is there a biblical reference on this? I think it will be hard to be elected on the 'Banning and criminalizing oral sex' platform.

They never got some and are jealous of those who did LOL!

Oh and yes people are easy to bribe with their own money as any politician knows too well.

 

[fossten]

And on another note - No oral sex? Like foss said - what are these people thinking? Where are they finding that is bad? Is there a biblical reference on this? I think it will be hard to be elected on the 'Banning and criminalizing oral sex' platform.

Thanks for parroting my point.

But seriously, Song of Solomon 7:1-4 clearly endorses oral sex if you really wanted to know.

 

[foxpaws]

Hey - I gave you credit - I just think we need some catchy campaign slogans for the GOP in Texas - "No gettin down in the Lone Star State"

But, you do have to wonder what they are basing that little bit on - why ban oral sex? Perhaps it is the whole procreation thing - one should never, ever waste perfectly good sperm.

"Leave no sperm behind" - works for both oral and anal sex... quick trademark it!!!

 

[shagdrum]

But, you do have to wonder what they are basing that little bit on - why ban oral sex?

It is likely not much beyond simply the sight and knowledge of adult businesses offends some of these people and their political sophistication is at the level of, "if something offends me, get my representative to ban it through legislation". Political principles need not apply. Unfortunately, that same ignorant and unprincipled attitude is prevalent on both sides of the isle and opportunistic, unprincipled politicians love to play off that.

 

[fossten]

Hey - I gave you credit - I just think we need some catchy campaign slogans for the GOP in Texas - "No gettin down in the Lone Star State"

But, you do have to wonder what they are basing that little bit on - why ban oral sex? Perhaps it is the whole procreation thing - one should never, ever waste perfectly good sperm.

Maybe they're a bit disgusted by Clinton's legacy - girls in high schools being pressured to "Lewinsky" the football players behind the gym. Let's face it - that wasn't in vogue until Bill defined it down. It's not actually sex according to Slick Willie. Thanks Bill.

 

[foxpaws]

Maybe they're a bit disgusted by Clinton's legacy - girls in high schools being pressured to "Lewinsky" the football players behind the gym. Let's face it - that wasn't in vogue until Bill defined it down. It's not actually sex according to Slick Willie. Thanks Bill.

Just the term 'Lewinsky' right? I believe the 'act' has been in 'vogue' for a few millennium...

 

[fossten]

Just the term 'Lewinsky' right? I believe the 'act' has been in 'vogue' for a few millennium...

It wasn't mainstreamed in high schools like it is now. I believe Katie Couric covered this in interviews with high school girls and the general conclusion was that Clinton's definition of sex meant that oral sex wasn't 'sex' per se.

 

[04SCTLS]

Hey - I gave you credit - I just think we need some catchy campaign slogans for the GOP in Texas - "No gettin down in the Lone Star State"

But, you do have to wonder what they are basing that little bit on - why ban oral sex? Perhaps it is the whole procreation thing - one should never, ever waste perfectly good sperm.

"Leave no sperm behind" - works for both oral and anal sex... quick trademark it!!!

God was a comedian and put the amusement park in the waste disposal area.

 

[fossten]

God was a comedian and put the amusement park in the waste disposal area.

That's only to prevent the owners from riding their own rides.

 

[04SCTLS]

Maybe they're a bit disgusted by Clinton's legacy - girls in high schools being pressured to "Lewinsky" the football players behind the gym. Let's face it - that wasn't in vogue until Bill defined it down. It's not actually sex according to Slick Willie. Thanks Bill.

It can't be called oral sex if it's not sex.
It's certainly lacivious.
We then need some other term for it.
What a specious definition Bill came up with when caught with his pants down.

 

[Morbid Intentions]

YouTube- The First DJO Obama Video

 

[fossten]

It can't be called oral sex if it's not sex.
It's certainly lacivious.
We then need some other term for it then..
What a specious definition Bill came up with when caught with his pants down.

Well, that depends on what your definition of 'pants' is.