Jump to content

Texas GOP


heathen

Recommended Posts

that is texas, the reddest of the red states.

 

A few things do cross the line I think, obviously the homosexuals being lumped in with child molesters, felony marriage charges, the licenses thing, and the whole Endangered species act

 

Mostly it sounds like they're just taking their parties ideals and pushing them WAYYY to the extreme (like the tea party gigglers) which will ultimately cause a massive backlash, assuming that voters aren't so dumb that they just vote for the first name on the docket in their party.

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We support amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress, thereby reducing abuse of the Act.

 

Does the current Americans with Disabilities Act include the bolded? It must, right, or they wouldnt be trying to amend them out. I would tend to agree that those particular cases should not be considered a disability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think Utah is the reddest of the red states. But they're generally much more polite about it-- Texas likes to be in-your-face.

 

But, mostly, this captures the outlook of the type of people who really want to be the people to write the platform for the Texas GOP. The people at the top of the party screwed up by not having any adults in the room, and it has earned them some rather embarrassing press. I don't think you'll see many candidates actually signing on to the entirety of that playform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We support amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress, thereby reducing abuse of the Act.

 

Does the current Americans with Disabilities Act include the bolded? It must, right, or they wouldnt be trying to amend them out. I would tend to agree that those particular cases should not be considered a disability.

It's ambiguous. A covered disability is a "physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." Determining the details is left to EEOC regulations and caselaw that arises out of individual complaints. I think there have been cases wherein a plaintiff has succeeded in a suit based on HIV-positive status.

 

I wouldn't assume that the people writing this would know the regs and caselaw all too well. From the bullet points on "one world currency" and the like, I suspect that the authors get a lot of their policy information from e-mails like the ones my grandfather forwards to me.

Edited by Enoch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why a person with an infectious disease can't be classified as disabled if the disease prevents them from living a somewhat normal life. I realize they are trying to target HIV, but that is a pretty broad stroke they are painting with. What about someone who has been severely mentally impaired by syphilis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you get struck down and disabled by meningitis, then you've obviously led a wicked life and deserves punishment. Don't you dare apply for disability status!

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We support amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress, thereby reducing abuse of the Act.

 

Does the current Americans with Disabilities Act include the bolded? It must, right, or they wouldnt be trying to amend them out. I would tend to agree that those particular cases should not be considered a disability.

 

No, it doesn't. http://www.ada.gov/q%26aeng02.htm

 

I'm not sure how credible the linked source is, but I'd be pretty danged surprised if this really was the platform of the statewide GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So obviously if you're already disabled, the law applies. Their point was that an infectious decease by itself isn't a disability.

 

We support amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress, thereby reducing abuse of the Act.

 

See, the thing is that you ask at what point does an infectious disease go from "non ADA" to ADA. Also on this point, I find it interesting that Learning and Behavior disabilities are both under the "remove" column when they both are MASSIVE strokes that run everything from basic add where you can still function very well, to something like my bipolar where you function pretty well but have to either be on meds or spend a week out of every 9 unable to work, to Tirets where you probably couldn't function very well in normal society without help.

 

It seems almost like they're taking the Scientology approach to mental disability/disorder, "THERE IS NOTHING WRONG! YOU'RE JUST LYING!"

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness, the document is 25 pages long and the snippets pulled out are chosen specifically to make the entire party look like raving lunatics. Now fair enough, I consider far-right wing conservatives to be extremists because I disagree with so many of their ultra-conservative philosophies... still, this was deliberately meant to be an inflammatory hit piece.

 

"We propose that every Texas driver license shall indicate whether the driver is a U.S. citizen. No such documentation shall be issued to anyone not legally in the country."

 

What the heck is wrong with this? Nearly every state in the union requires proof of citizenship or legal residency to issue a driver's license. This is hardly a radical position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness, the document is 25 pages long and the snippets pulled out are chosen specifically to make the entire party look like raving lunatics. Now fair enough, I consider far-right wing conservatives to be extremists because I disagree with so many of their ultra-conservative philosophies... still, this was deliberately meant to be an inflammatory hit piece.

 

"We propose that every Texas driver license shall indicate whether the driver is a U.S. citizen. No such documentation shall be issued to anyone not legally in the country."

 

What the heck is wrong with this? Nearly every state in the union requires proof of citizenship or legal residency to issue a driver's license. This is hardly a radical position.

*shrugs* I'm sure they don't mean this, but somebody will construe this as "if you don't have your license you will be deported as an illegal". Ironically my Sociology teacher (who loooved to preach about in-equalities) would leap on this as an example of an extension of what one of her professors families went through (apparently in like the 20's or something there was a string of mass deportations where if somebody who looked non-white didn't have their papers, they were tossed on a train and sent to mexico... I've never seen this mentioned anywhere else so I figure it's a little bit of fact, lotta bit of fiction).

Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition!

 

Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness, the document is 25 pages long and the snippets pulled out are chosen specifically to make the entire party look like raving lunatics. Now fair enough, I consider far-right wing conservatives to be extremists because I disagree with so many of their ultra-conservative philosophies... still, this was deliberately meant to be an inflammatory hit piece.

 

"We propose that every Texas driver license shall indicate whether the driver is a U.S. citizen. No such documentation shall be issued to anyone not legally in the country."

 

What the heck is wrong with this? Nearly every state in the union requires proof of citizenship or legal residency to issue a driver's license. This is hardly a radical position.

 

This is stupid because it means no more cab drivers for Texas.

 

I also really like this one:

 

The sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death.

 

While supporting the death penalty. Sacred indeed! :D

Edited by heathen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness, the document is 25 pages long and the snippets pulled out are chosen specifically to make the entire party look like raving lunatics. Now fair enough, I consider far-right wing conservatives to be extremists because I disagree with so many of their ultra-conservative philosophies... still, this was deliberately meant to be an inflammatory hit piece.

 

"We propose that every Texas driver license shall indicate whether the driver is a U.S. citizen. No such documentation shall be issued to anyone not legally in the country."

 

What the heck is wrong with this? Nearly every state in the union requires proof of citizenship or legal residency to issue a driver's license. This is hardly a radical position.

*shrugs* I'm sure they don't mean this, but somebody will construe this as "if you don't have your license you will be deported as an illegal". Ironically my Sociology teacher (who loooved to preach about in-equalities) would leap on this as an example of an extension of what one of her professors families went through (apparently in like the 20's or something there was a string of mass deportations where if somebody who looked non-white didn't have their papers, they were tossed on a train and sent to mexico... I've never seen this mentioned anywhere else so I figure it's a little bit of fact, lotta bit of fiction).

 

1929-1939; it was a reaction to the Great Depression (but wasn't necessarily abnormal with US immigration policy at the time, a 1924 Immigration act severely limited immigration from some places (like Italy) and denied immigration almost entirely from Asia).

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-0...ees-cover_x.htm is a recent article on the "Mexican Repatriations" from the time period (there's also a few documentaries on the subject, but I have no names to refer you to).

I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, pro-lifers who support the death penalty always crack me up.

 

In that sad, profoundly wasteful kind of way.

How exactly is that some sort of hypocrisy? Someone on death row has had a chance at life and has taken the lives of other's in, usually horrific means and would likely continue. I suppose those who oppose the death penalty yet are for abortions are ok with you. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, pro-lifers who support the death penalty always crack me up.

 

In that sad, profoundly wasteful kind of way.

How exactly is that some sort of hypocrisy? Someone on death row has had a chance at life and has taken the lives of other's in, usually horrific means and would likely continue. I suppose those who oppose the death penalty yet are for abortions are ok with you. :p

 

The actual quote from the document itself is different from the one quoted in the first post and makes the distinction you mention clear: "All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

Edited by Amentep

I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, pro-lifers who support the death penalty always crack me up.

 

In that sad, profoundly wasteful kind of way.

How exactly is that some sort of hypocrisy? Someone on death row has had a chance at life and has taken the lives of other's in, usually horrific means and would likely continue.

 

Death penalty isn't fool proof, lots of innocent people have been executed in the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For comparison I read yesterday that one of the new conservative health panel members believes foetuses can punch their way out of the womb.

"It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"."

             -Elwood Blues

 

tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, pro-lifers who support the death penalty always crack me up.

 

In that sad, profoundly wasteful kind of way.

How exactly is that some sort of hypocrisy? Someone on death row has had a chance at life and has taken the lives of other's in, usually horrific means and would likely continue. I suppose those who oppose the death penalty yet are for abortions are ok with you. :down:

The argument usually goes like this: all life belongs to God, and therefore it's exclusively His prerogative to give and take it. If you accept that man can come up with exceptions to amend what is Divine judgment... well, all bets are off. Looking at it purely from a consistency perspective, it's not exactly the most tenable of positions.

 

However, this is politics...

 

 

For comparison I read yesterday that one of the new conservative health panel members believes foetuses can punch their way out of the womb.
<insert Chuck Norris reference> Edited by 213374U

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...