Texas State Republican Platform Released

[Michael Hardner]

Moving further to the right. Is this the influence of the tea party causing this ? If not, is it reaction to Obama ? What ?

Excerpts:

Foreign Control of US Interests – We oppose sale, transfer, management or ownership of U.S. interests by foreign or international

interests. Foreign owned properties and income shall be subject to all U.S. laws.

Transportation Corridors – We oppose the construction of transportation projects which surrender control or ownership to foreign

interests. We oppose the use of eminent domain for construction of a “trans Texas corridor” or similar project which would create a

federal corridor through Texas.

some social conservative ideas too, like rescinding no-fault divorce (?)

Marriage and Divorce – We believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the integrity of this institution should be protected

at all levels of government. We urge the Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws. We support Covenant Marriage.quote]

Texas GOP Party Platform

The topic of the thread is: What do you think of this platform ? How did it end up getting adopted ? Are these good ideas ?

Edited June 28, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Remiel]

I am in the middle of reading it, but I am not likely to give a comprehensive analysis right now.

One tidbit I found interesting however, was this:

Free Speech for the Clergy - We urge change of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address

issue without fear of losing its tax-exempt status. We call for repeal of requirements that religious organizations send government any personal information about their contributors.

I think that it is somewhat interesting or odd, because given the previously stated belief (more or less) that terrorism is the number one threat to Texas, and that they have some seeming disdain for Muslims, it means that one of the favourite tools for exposing extremist Imams and mosques, the contributors list, would suddenly become unavailable.

[Michael Hardner]

I read those things as being suspicious of having churches de-listed for making anti-homosexual sermons.

[Remiel]

I read those things as being suspicious of having churches de-listed for making anti-homosexual sermons.

Absolutely. One step thinking is generally not a laudable quality, however.

I just read the section on Homosexuality. I do not quite understand what they mean by opposing special priviliges for custody of children by homosexuals. Is it a reference to adoption, or do they actual oppose biological homosexual parents having custody of their own children if the opposing parent is heterosexual?

[Michael Hardner]

Absolutely. One step thinking is generally not a laudable quality, however.

I just read the section on Homosexuality. I do not quite understand what they mean by opposing special priviliges for custody of children by homosexuals. Is it a reference to adoption, or do they actual oppose biological homosexual parents having custody of their own children if the opposing parent is heterosexual?

A lot of the language in this document is "we oppose..." followed by a list of something outside their jurisdiction. When coupled with the pronouncements on states' rights, it makes me think they seriously want to strike a blow to federal sovereignty over certain issues.

Definitely, the part on foreign investment is eye-opening. Big business will flee to the democrats if Texas Republicans start seriously proposing pulling out from NAFTA, etc.

[Remiel]

The answer was found further down in the document it seems.

Child Support and Visitation - We support equity between responsible parents in child support, custody and visitation rights and costs, as well as the strengthening of laws designed to protect children from abuse. No parent/grandparent should be denied court ordered visitation, because of jurisdictional disputes between states. We also believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that the visitation with minor children by such persons should be prohibited but if ordered by the court limited to supervised periods.

The hypocrisy of saying that parenthood and the right to teach your children as you may is sacred, and then saying that if you are homosexual you have no such rights, is disgusting. It is revolting.

[Michael Hardner]

The hypocrisy of saying that parenthood and the right to teach your children as you may is sacred, and then saying that if you are homosexual you have no such rights, is disgusting. It is revolting.

No child should be taken from a parent or guardian that is protecting their child and providing for their child in a loving environment.

[sharkman]

So Mike, why exactly do you care what they think in Texas? There is 50 states, I'm really hoping you don't cover all of them.

[Michael Hardner]

So Mike, why exactly do you care what they think in Texas? There is 50 states, I'm really hoping you don't cover all of them.

There are 50 states, yes.

Gee, I don't know... why do I care ? Because this is a forum where we discuss things, because America's policies often impact Canada - since they are our closest friend & trading partner, because American policies sometimes end up being proposed here...

This "why do you care" ? comment often comes from B_C. I don't understand it. I care because I care.

[dre]

So Mike, why exactly do you care what they think in Texas? There is 50 states, I'm really hoping you don't cover all of them.

Sort of a silly question isnt it? Individual states can act as a bellweather for the direction of politics in a broader scope.

[bush_cheney2004]

There are 50 states, yes.

...plus the District of Columbia, several territories and possessions, as well as UN protectorates. Oh, and the US also has buggies on the moon and rovers on Mars. Pioneers and Voyagers are headed for interstellar space, so anything is possible.

Gee, I don't know... why do I care ? Because this is a forum where we discuss things, because America's policies often impact Canada - since they are our closest friend & trading partner, because American policies sometimes end up being proposed here...

If this is true down to the state level, you should be discussing why/how that happens to Canada.

This "why do you care" ? comment often comes from B_C. I don't understand it. I care because I care.

Nah... I think you care because you need more blog material.

[GostHacked]

.....

Your contributions to the thread and topic are noted.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your contributions to the thread and topic are noted.

..as is your waggily puppy tail following me about this site.

[GostHacked]

..as is your waggily puppy tail following me about this site.

You must be mistaken. But in any case, I'd like to hump your leg for a while.

[naomiglover]

So Mike, why exactly do you care what they think in Texas? There is 50 states, I'm really hoping you don't cover all of them.

Why have your recent posts become complaints about posters trying to debate and discuss issues?

Maybe it's time for you to leave this political debate forum since you keep discouraging debate about political issues.

[Michael Hardner]

...plus the District of Columbia, several territories and possessions, as well as UN protectorates. Oh, and the US also has buggies on the moon and rovers on Mars. Pioneers and Voyagers are headed for interstellar space, so anything is possible.

Sandstorms on Mars vs US trade policy ?

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?

If this is true down to the state level, you should be discussing why/how that happens to Canada.

Thanks for telling me what to talk about. Like the Texas Republicans, you want to get involved in the lives of others more and more....

Nah... I think you care because you need more blog material.

You won't see me blogging about this one... I may discuss it on my radio show though...

[Michael Hardner]

Why have your recent posts become complaints about posters trying to debate and discuss issues?

Maybe it's time for you to leave this political debate forum since you keep discouraging debate about political issues.

This is the last line of defense for people who can't defend what is being posted.

Basically, the Republicans have gone crazy and some people's identities are so tied into their politics that if their hair were on fire, they wouldn't let a Democrat put it out.

I am fortunate enough to be left-of-centre and to think for myself, so when somebody criticizes the left I don't take it personally, and sometimes I may even agree with the criticism.

[bloodyminded]

This is the last line of defense for people who can't defend what is being posted.

Basically, the Republicans have gone crazy and some people's identities are so tied into their politics that if their hair were on fire, they wouldn't let a Democrat put it out.

I am fortunate enough to be left-of-centre and to think for myself, so when somebody criticizes the left I don't take it personally, and sometimes I may even agree with the criticism.

Exactly, Michael. When somehting is mistaken (or oversimplified, overgeneralized, or naive...etc)...then that speaks for itself.

Personally, I am not some spokesman for some entity called "the left," so stupid lefties are no more my fault than they are Stephen Harper's.