Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.

Texas Republicans Adopt Extremely Controversial Platform

posted by NCommander on Monday June 09 2014, @10:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the unbelievable dept.

Subsentient writes:

Texas Republicans have decided on a platform that includes abolishing minimum wage, cancelling climate research, banning the teaching of evolution at schools, and repealing the voting rights act, among other things, but hilariously (or depressingly) the one thing on this laundry list that people are angry about is their plan to "rehabilitate" homosexuals, a practice that many say is harmful.

BBC News has more: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27774102

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Texas Republicans Adopt Extremely Controversial Platform | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 143 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday June 10 2014, @05:25AM

    by dry (223) on Tuesday June 10 2014, @05:25AM (#53604) Journal

    Sounds good in principle but I have to wonder how long before war starts between the new independent States. There are lots of war mongers and lots of weapons that may go to the seceding State.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by gidds on Tuesday June 10 2014, @09:23AM

    by gidds (589) on Tuesday June 10 2014, @09:23AM (#53666)
    As Tom Lehrer put it [metrolyrics.com]:

    We'll try to say serene and calm
    When Alabama gets the bomb.

    Who's next?

    --
    [sig redacted]

  • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday June 11 2014, @08:07PM

    by tftp (806) on Wednesday June 11 2014, @08:07PM (#54272) Homepage

    Sounds good in principle but I have to wonder how long before war starts between the new independent States. There are lots of war mongers and lots of weapons that may go to the seceding State.

    One cannot sustain a civil war on warmongers alone. They tend to end soon, either by stopping talking like fools, or by fighting and killing each other. Government-organized wars, of course, have fewer constraints because nobody asks soldiers what they want to do.

    A voluntary and willful war between two (or more) states is possible only if these states, in firm belief of their populations, have something to fight over. There are certainly some strategic resources (water, for example, in deserts of the West coast) that are valuable. In some circumstances the people may want to fight for them. But by and large fighting will be not between the states; the power of states themselves will be greatly reduced, and they simply won't be able to organize the people or force them to fight for something that they don't care about. Most of the fighting will be between individual citizens, over something that one citizen wants to take from another. This will end up with disappearance of all the excessively violent people; their proportion in the population is not that high even today, and their business will become far more dangerous after the police disappears.

    • (Score: 2) by dry on Thursday June 12 2014, @05:03AM

      by dry (223) on Thursday June 12 2014, @05:03AM (#54433) Journal

      Hopefully you are right. Anyways I doubt America is going to break up so it is all conjecture.