Texas GOP

[heathen]

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/26/texas...-comes-out.html

 

Texan GOP election platform.

 

Full PDF here. Some choice quotes:

 

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

 

 

[HoonDing]

no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation

This is pretty slanderous.

[Calax]

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.

[Gfted1]

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.

[Enoch]

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.

[Enoch]

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 June 30, 2010 by Enoch

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm pretty sure there were cases brought on those grounds under ADA, but the courts didn't necessarily grant all of them.

[Hurlshort]

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?

[Gorth]

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!

[Wrath of Dagon]

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

[Thorton_AP]

I like how homosexuals are implicitly equated with child molesters....

[~Di]

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.

[Calax]

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!"

[Aram]

What about someone who has been severely mentally impaired by syphilis?

He's still more mentally capable than most Texans.

[~Di]

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.

[Humodour]

…eliminating the Endangered Species Act.

 

Texas GOP: a group of ****ing retards.

 

At least the ones who wrote and support the majority of that policy list.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Krezack

[Calax]

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).

[heathen]

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 July 1, 2010 by heathen

[Humodour]

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

 

In that sad, profoundly wasteful kind of way.

[Amentep]

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).

[GreasyDogMeat]

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.

[Amentep]

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.

 

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 July 1, 2010 by Amentep

[heathen]

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.

[Walsingham]

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

[213374U]

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.

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 July 1, 2010 by 213374U