10 most absurd things in GOP state platforms

[Alferd_Packer]

Montana wants to legalize pollution:

The Montana Republican party opposes the Toxic Substances Control Act and all other Federal regulation by non elected Federal Agencies that are hurtful to free-enterprise.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where they didn't provide direct links I was able to track most down using searches on exact language.

At least the first one I clicked on (to the Maine GOP platform) was a good direct link.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If it makes you feel superior to be a pedant, fine.
But do NOT put words in my *********** mouth.
Reported

Hostile much?

I had no intention of putting words in your blankety-blank mouth. I quoted Alfred Packer. I must've done a multi-quote or something and screwed up the tags. Sorry about that.

Now--back to the topic: do you suppose this biased site got something wrong about the platform positions? Do you still think they're just proposals and not actually positions that were actually adopted by state GOPs?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maine wants to outlaw atheism:

Reassert the principle that “Freedom of Religion” does not mean “freedom from religion”.

 

[CORed]

i tried to find some stuff, but all i found was that apparently a lot of state dem parties dont post their platforms where people can find them easily

guess the idea is people should elect them and see what happens to find out their platform

When did a party platform ever bear any significant relationship to what the party actually does when elected?

 

[shadron]

Wind turbines are major bird killers

Actually, it's been shown they're not, not on the scale of highrise office buildings, for instance.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

From the Iowa GOP Platform:

We believe human life should be protected from conception to non-intervened natural death, excluding acts of capital punishment.

Am I the only one who finds that the “exclusion” to be some what disingenuous?

Is this a case as per the old saying: ”The exception tests the rule?”

http://www.iowagop.org/site/c.ruIWKbMYIvF/b.5647735/k.A17D/RPI_Platform.htm

 

[Alferd_Packer]

More From the Iowa GOP

We support the definition of manure as a natural fertilizer

It’s good to see the Iowa Republicans are such good producers of organic fertilizers.

We support common law control of wildlife that is destructive to property and dangerous to human life. For the safety of people and livestock, we are opposed to protecting mountain lions, cougars, wolves, elk, moose, and black bear or similar dangerous animals.

Yeah, those man eating moose in Iowa are out of control.

This plank:

We support standard farming practices, increased preservation of farmland, and efforts to preserve Iowa’s agriculture industry.

Is in direct conflict with this plank:

We believe anyone moving into or already living in areas zoned as agricultural should be prohibited from filing “nuisance” lawsuits against expansion or development, if defendants are in compliance with all governing laws.

So you want to preserve Iowa’s farm land, but you don’t want to stop urban sprawl development.

As far as education in Iowa goes, they also seem a bit confused;

This plank:

We oppose duplication of educational programs for bilingual consideration. Every child should become proficient in English by being immersed in English.

And this plank:

We support a curriculum and classroom settings designed to enable all students to achieve to the best of their abilities. “Mainstreaming” special-needs students with other students has been detrimental to general student education.

Seem to be saying that “if you’re Mexican or handicapped, too bad.” But:

We believe that Intelligent Design theory, or Creationism, should be included with all science instruction along with the Darwinian theory. No theory should then be taught in public schools to the exclusion of the other. . .
We believe that Judeo-Christian values and Scripture should not be excluded from the public schools. . . .
The use of the Bible as a textbook should be allowed. . . .
We oppose the “Bullying Law”.

If you are a fundy, then you can spread your ignorance to the rest of the state with impunity.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Damn!, the Iowa GOP is full of fun.

We oppose the proposed North American Union, which would do away with our borders and sovereignty, and we are opposed to the Amero, which would do away with our currency and sovereignty.

The Amero? They’re kidding, right?
Apparently not, they are seriously infected with woo:

We oppose so-called “World Government” and support full constitutional sovereignty of the U.S.A.
. . .
We reject the “1972 World Heritage Treaty”, which sets up 20 heritage sites within the United States to be governed by a United Nations mandate.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So you want to preserve Iowa’s farm land, but you don’t want to stop urban sprawl development.

I suspect that might actually be the other way around--there are occasional news items about people moving into new developments in what was formerly just agricultural areas, then suing the nearby pig farm for being smelly and a nuisance even though it was there first. Everyone who isn't living in the new development usually sides with the farmers.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I suspect that might actually be the other way around--there are occasional news items about people moving into new developments in what was formerly just agricultural areas, then suing the nearby pig farm for being smelly and a nuisance even though it was there first. Everyone who isn't living in the new development usually sides with the farmers.

They have a plank about that. making the plaintiffs pay for the defendants court costs.

The problem is, the plank as written supports all "development." This would include, of course the property owners right to develop the land to non-agricultural use.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Okay, the Iowa GOP is seriously out to lunch here.

http://www.iowagop.org/site/c.ruIWKbMYIvF/b.5647735/k.A17D/RPI_Platform.htm

We resolve that the Constitution of the United States is the authority for the basis of law in this country, as intended by our Founding Fathers not as a “living breathing document.”

Ok, so I guess they believe in the strict originalist theory, or maybe not when you have a black president. . . .

We call for the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th Amendment in today’s Constitution.

So, they want to eliminate the amendment against slavery and reintroduce it with the first draft of the 13th amendment proposed in 1810. This is the so-called “titles of Nobility amendment:

. If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment

Why?

What’s up with this?

Well apparently, they are still upset that President Obama won the Nobel Peace prize (even though the Nobel Committee is not a “foreign power” as defined by law.).

But, just incase that ploy doesn’t work, they want to formalize a common birther argument:

We call for the legal ratification of the 14th Amendment and the clarification of Section I as based upon the author’s intent (Senator Jacob Howard).
. . .
We insist that a candidate prove that he or she meets all requirements for that office prior to being placed in nomination, including proof of United States citizenship.

They don’t like the 14th amendment at all apparently

We believe that bequeathing citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens in the United States is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. They are not citizens.

 

[GreyArea]

So, they want to eliminate the amendment against slavery and reintroduce it with the first draft of the 13th amendment proposed in 1810. This is the so-called “titles of Nobility amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment

Why?

What’s up with this?

The reason is that they think it would basically block all lawyers and court systems. Lawyers use the title "Esquire", dontchaknow, so they would have their citizenship stripped, the courts (being mostly lawyers) would be ineffective, and sovereign citizens would have maximum freedom.

The notion has been around since the Patriot/Militia Movement days of the 90's. For more, see the end of the Wikipedia article you linked to above. And for a lot more information about this, see the Militia Watchdog archive about the subject, with many references, here.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

The reason is that they think it would basically block all lawyers and court systems. Lawyers use the title "Esquire", dontchaknow, so they would have their citizenship stripped, the courts (being mostly lawyers) would be ineffective, and sovereign citizens would have maximum freedom.

The notion has been around since the Patriot/Militia Movement days of the 90's. For more, see the end of the Wikipedia article you linked to above. And for a lot more information about this, see the Militia Watchdog archive about the subject, with many references, here.

So the Iowa GOP has gone FOTL, nice.

 

[Suddenly]

Yeah, those man eating moose in Iowa are out of control.

I don't know how many run around in Iowa, but to be fair hitting one of those buggers with a car can easily be fatal.

 

[uk_dave]

Hmmmm then ban cars. Problem solved.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I don't know how many run around in Iowa, but to be fair hitting one of those buggers with a car can easily be fatal.

Driving home from the bar is a lot more risky, but no one wants to have open season on bartenders.

 

[Ladewig]

We insist that a candidate prove that he or she meets all requirements for that office prior to being placed in nomination, including proof of United States citizenship.

Do they really think the secretary of state of each state does not perform eligibility checks before placing a major party's candidate on the ballot? Do they really think that the Republican secretaries of state didn't make sure Obama was a citizen?

 

[Accidental Martyr]

My question is, "Do things like this (Amero, teaching creationism, Bible as textbook, etc.) represent the general beliefs of the majority of the republican party?" I'm sure the vast majority are in favor of prayer in school, teaching ceationism, etc. but some of the stuff veers into wacky CT territory. If this represents the beliefs of the average republican then it's even scarier than I thought.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

For comparison, here is the Iowa democratic platform Obviously they differ substantially on most issues, but here are the weirdest WTF issues I could find:

We Oppose: . . . Military recruiting in Kindergarten-12 schools and supplying student names to 294 recruiters.

We Support . . Pardoning Leonard Peltier.

And it looks like they are biting into the same woo pie on this one

We Oppose . . . North American Free Trade Agreement” "super highway".

Also, for the stoners . . .

We support: . . .
Medical marijuana.
Alternative, holistic treatments that demonstrate efficacy and safety in 852 peer-reviewed studies.