Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

"FETUS,

TRANSGENDER, VULNERABLE, ENTITLEMENT, DIVERSITY,

EVENDENCE-BASED, SCIENCE-BASED."

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Your "Small Government" GOP at Work.






Small compared with what, they never say, but here's the GOP busily at work sticking its nose into your life, because they know what best for YOU!




[T]he South Carolina House Judiciary Committee has given its preliminary approval to a bill that would allow alcohol sales on Election Day. “They were worried that people’s votes could be bought by alcohol on Election Day, which is about the silliest thing ever,” said South Carolina state Rep. Todd Rutherford (D), the bill’s lead sponsor.

“But I’ve tried for about three years not to change it, and this is the first opportunity I’ve had to do so, the first time the bill has made it out of subcommittee.”

 Oh, but there's a catch. A big, big, big catch. But the state House Judiciary Committee has added a new wrinkle: In exchange for allowing alcohol sales on Election Day, the committee added an amendment that would require liquor not be sold on Christmas Day.

That has the booze industry up in arms.


Hunter of Daily Kos:

I have to ask, South Carolina, and I mean this sincerely: Has the premise really been that if you allowed the South Carolina populous to purchase alcohol on Election Day, it would result in worse election outcomes and worse elected officials than those that already lead the state? Really?



And this (shudder) from my home state of Massachusetts, where Gee-Oh-Pee legislators are as rare as a hot day in January:



The Massachusetts state legislature conducted hearings this week on a bill that would make it illegal for divorcing parents to date or have sex in their own home before their divorce is final. Essentially, if this bill were to pass, divorcing adults who happen to have children would have to get a judge’s approval to have sex in their home. Or, you know, just go to a hotel. Or their significant other’s house. Or just do it anyway. State Sen. Richard Ross sponsored the bill on behalf constituent Wrentham Selectman Robert Leclair, the former president of a father’s rights organization who also reportedly, unsurprisingly, went through a nasty divorce of his own.


(Nah, those GOPers aren't anti-women.  Is it just a coincidence that in 83% of divorces, mothers get custody of the children?) 


GOP state-funded pregnancy tests in bars!


"Fetal alcohol syndrome is a devastating problem in Alaska, so state Senate Finance Committee co-chairman Pete Kelly, a Fairbanks Republican, has made it his personal mission to stamp it out. 

This week, in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, he described the ways he plans to clamp down on the problem, including spending "a lot of money" on media campaigns and providing publicly funded pregnancy tests in Alaska's bars and restaurants, so that women will be discouraged from shooting whiskey if they find out they're pregnant. 

But make no mistake: Kelly is not interested in providing state-funded birth control in public places. He says that "birth control is for people who don't necessarily want to act responsibly" and that would amount to "social engineering."



So why do the media report more often on right wing crackpots and weirdos? 

 Kevin Drum answers that question.  

And that question has a lot to do with what commenter, Dave Miller, brings up with conservative bloggers all the time:  Responsible people in the GOP rarely, if ever, disown or condemn the crackpots and their anti-women, anti-gay, anti-union, anti-science, anti-poor statements.  

The GOP, in not doing so, tacitly approves of their fringe weirdos.

25 comments:

Infidel753 said...

They were worried that people’s votes could be bought by alcohol on Election Day

By that logic, they should permanently ban lobbyists from possessing money, since plenty of legislators' votes actually are bought with it.

a bill that would make it illegal for divorcing parents to date or have sex in their own home before their divorce is final.

Yep, that there sure is some small and un-intrusive government, all right. It's also a waste of the legislature's time, since it would surely be found unconstitutional, based on the precedent of Lawrence v. Texas striking down early laws against sexual activity in private.

Fetal alcohol syndrome is a devastating problem in Alaska

That could explain a lot.

Jerry Critter said...

Notice that these GOP sponsored laws are directed at people. When the GOP say "small government", they are talking about laws directed at business, not individuals.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Ahhh. I get it. Small government for corporations; large intrusive government for people.

Wait...


"Corporations are people, my friend." --Willard Romney


KanaW said...

Ah, thanks, Jerry!

I believe you've hit the nail on the head. I often wondered about that.

okjimm said...

I feel most of those proposed laws are strictly diversionary.
Most seemed to be written like a chain letter from Alec...the intent being...smokescreen.
Most legislatures, at least ones with high school diplomas, know that they are basically unconstitutional and will not stand up to a test of law, but proceed with them anyway to divert attention away from serious and egregious assaults on economic freedoms and environmental safety.

While we worry about sex laws, they are stealing the trees, preventing citizens from voting, pissing in our clean water....of course, ala Romney, once they make a profit from raping us...in goes into a off shore account.

sheesh...time for a beer.

Rational Nation USA said...

I find this highly partisan bullshit amusing. Make no mistake, each side is highly partisan and both sides position(s) are bullshit.

1) We do not have small government
2) We have large government.
3) The goddamnes republicans want to tell everyone how to live their personal lives.
4) The goddamned democrats want to grow government and create dependency on the state.
5) Left to continue, between the two moronic parties there is no doubt future generations will live under the fucking tyranny both deluded parties profess to stand against.

And societies sheeple will continue to bye on sides bullshit or the others.

Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.

But carry on. The iron shackles lay just ahead.

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN, of course both sides are "highly partisan," that's what politics is about, and it has been like this since Jefferson and Adams went at each other with partisan attacks.

There are two major factions in this country, conservatives and liberals, and each faction looks at governing a different way. There will always be contention because of that. Would more political parties help?

Instead of raging against the two "moronic parties," each party should weed out the extremists by disavowing their extremists ideas.

BTW, the political parties that gave us the end of slavery, women's suffrage, collective bargaining, the 40 hour week, public schools, child labor laws, environmental protection, civil rights, the overthrow of DADT, equality of marriage, women the right to vote, etc., could hardly be labeled "moronic."

I think the real "tyranny" is found in the oceans of money that have drowned out the common men and women's voices in how they are governed.

A perfect example is the perfectly common sense bill for background checks in firearms sales. A majority of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, as well as a majority of NRA members approved of this, and yet the cowards in Congress did not pass it. We know the old say "Money talks." In the USA political process, money governs.

Rational Nation USA said...

My time left on this earth us short. Won't be wasting it on the moronic BS much longer.

Anonymous said...

there is a sickness on the right that has made most of their shallow thinkers say racist crap like this:

"There is a reason why Obama does not stand up to defend Western values. He has no western values. In fact, I cannot think of one single thing that makes Obama one of us. He is as foreign to American culture as he can possibly get. And let me add this: IMO, there is very little difference between Barack Hussein Obama and Jim Jones: one of those assholes convinced Americans to reelect him to the White House in 2012, the other asshole convinced his followers to drink the Kool-Aid.


This is the sort of language one would expect from a KKK meeting. "Not one of "us?"


Who the f**k do they mean "one of us?"

I'm an "us." And Mr. Obama, with his strengths and weaknesses, is most certainly one of us.

Because he is not of their political ideology, they make him out to be anti-American, foreign, "other," instead of just having a different political philosophy.

Theirs is a culture of eliminationists. If someone doesn't embrace their idea of America, he's not "one of us."

It's easy to justify getting rid of what is not "one of us."

The Nazis were very good at it.





Shaw Kenawe said...

Anon@9:19, that strain of paranoia and eliminationist rhetoric isn't unusual:

"American journalist David Neiwert argues that eliminationist rhetoric is becoming increasingly mainstream within the American right wing, fueled in large part by the extremist discourse found on conservative blogs and talk radio..." --Wikipedia

In the extremist wing of the TeaGOP, it is not enough to disagree with political ideas, those who hold those ideas must be eliminated, and that starts with making them "not one of us."

It justifies their consuming hatred.

People who use that sort of rhetoric to describe any political opponent are tapping into an vicious, dark and seething nature in mankind that's been around for centuries. And it ultimately leads to tragedy.

If you wish, contact me via email and let me know where you found that quote. If I have time this week, it may be useful to do a blog post on this subject.

Very disturbing, but not surprising.



Stephanie Roberta Wright Gordon said...

FYI, shaw, RW humor:


"And people wonder why the rest of the world continues to laugh their asses off at us. After reading that progressive blog-site, that is written solely for bitching about conservative’s and conservative blogs, such as this one, where the author constantly defends her, praises her, and just about worships her, and “Praises Her For Style and Warmth” and her Left Wing Crackpots, Weirdo readers with their Rabid Anger comment all that BS to please her, and making compressions[sic] to other First Ladies like Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan, who shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same sentence as this First Wookie.
It’s like reading about “The Barking-Mad Dogs of the Blogsphere" comic strip in the Funny pages of my local newspaper.
You just can't make this stuff up."

Spam Hunting said...

Ever notice the Right accuses absolutely Everyone of being a Communist...except the Chinese?

skudrunner said...

People will do what is in their best interest and politicians are not going to shrink government no matter which side they are on. Both sides talk a good game but neither is going to downsize their influence.

That would be like a divorced women voting against alimony or someone on welfare voting against entitlements, not gonna happen.

BB-Idaho said...

Where do they come up with
growing government and where were they when it was big?

Rational Nation USA said...

The federal bureaucracy has simply gotten more efficient at increasing the scope, reach, and involvement in the affairs of the citizenry. That is the logical and honest interpretation of the chart.

Dervish Sanders said...

My time left on this earth us short. Won't be wasting it on the moronic BS much longer.

Planning on burning all your Ayn Rand books?

Uncle Stephanie Remus is Just Saying it Like it is! said...

Maybe we should simply ignore the problem, "at this point, what difference does it make"

Rational Nation USA said...

And... as IT continues to become more sophisticated, efficient, and proficien, as well as communication technology expands this trend will continue. However, the growth in governmental intrusion will continue to grow.

",,, at this point what difference does it make? Ask Hillary.

Anonymous said...

Did Obama unfriend Obama on Facebook — as a social media sanction?

Rational Nation USA said...

Did Anonymous take its meds today?

okjimm said...

Skudlimper said, "Both sides talk a good game..."

That is hilarious! I watch Fox (occasionaly) and the verbage is bark, growl,grunt,moan....but it is not TALK. Nor factual,realistic,intelligent, thoughtful. The radical right wing's oft repeated "both side" argument is juvenile; as in 'Bobby pushed me first...'


Duckys here said...

A look at the Republican elite

Google "basil marceaux youtube 2010 debate".
Try to watch this without reaching for alcohol.

He actually mentions Marceaux/Palin.
This guy makes Ted Nugent seem cogent.

Rational Nation USA said...

okjimm, looking into mirrors, or put more intellectually, being capable of self introspection, is not a deficiency experienced only by conservatives. To believe otherwise is, as you say, juvenile.

okjimm said...

RN... I practice self introspection on a daily basis.....and I still cannot figure out why I married my ex-wife.

Rational Nation USA said...

Been trying to figure that out as well! For the past 34 years.

Thankfully my current wife who is very lovely and gracious, as well as intelligent has helped me realize we all make mistakes.