"Neither would a married couple with only a measly three kids. "
Three shalt be the number thou shalt birth, and the number of the birthing shall be three. Four shalt thou not birth, nor either birth thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.
The last thing we need to be doing is encouraging more kids. There are nearly 8 billion people on the planet. Over 330 million in the US. How many more people do we need?
If they keep this up, the Republican party is definitely going to have to change their logo to the one that was familiar in 1930s Germany -- which I shall not mention my name.
Oh, good- I was worried for a minute that Texas was going to sit back and just 𝘭𝘦𝘵 Florida win the race to the bottom. Nice to see there's still some competition.
I keep on telling people that this kind of big "idea" is always rooted in misogyny that lives cheek by jowl with religious fanaticism.
And just as I posted elsewhere this week, the next item on the agenda for these wingnuts is divorce. Considering how many Catholics sit on the SC, you can count on it.
As if, for one thing, a woman will have any physical health left after giving birth to 10 kids. These men seem to think giving birth is a walk in the park.
Yeah, 'tis the season for political theater. This bill is so laden with nonsensical discrimination that it has no hope of passing or surviving a legal challenge if it did. This is just for resume boosting.
I bet they do care. I bet he knows this disproportionally helps whites, and sees that as a feature not a bug. Now, Texas has no state income tax, so I'm not sure what other sort of personal tax break they could reasonably give. Arguably, property tax is the only big individual, state, tax pot to go after. But I would bet money that if some financial analysis showed that a property tax reduction would help blacks and hispancs more than whites, he'd withdraw this bill so fast Einstein would get upset his theory was broken.
Why can't we bar religious leaders from government positions again?
Maybe it's confirmation bias, but it seems all too often like we get the worst legislation out of politicians who were or are some sort of religious leader - as in, pastor, rabbi, elder, etc. I feel like this should be a violation of the separation of church and state, even if it's technically not one; it seems like too many of them just don't, won't, or can't see a difference between their religious ideals and the rule of law. Good governance requires the ability to compromise, being faithful to a religious ideology precludes that ability. In theory, at least, it seems to me that anyone good at being a religious leader is going to make a lousy politician and vice versa.
Of course, getting elected as a religious leader is usually easier from what I can tell, so I guess that's why it keeps happening. Pardon me, I'm going to go bang my head on my desk for a bit.
"Be fruitful and multiply": TX bill cuts property taxes for couples with 10 kids
"Neither would a married couple with only a measly three kids. "
Three shalt be the number thou shalt birth, and the number of the birthing shall be three. Four shalt thou not birth, nor either birth thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.
"You're not making Christianity better, you're just making sex worse!"
The last thing we need to be doing is encouraging more kids. There are nearly 8 billion people on the planet. Over 330 million in the US. How many more people do we need?
I learned to multiply in 3rd grade. Do I get a tax break?
What happens if some of your kids are unruly? Do you lose your tax break if you have to stone a couple of them?
If they keep this up, the Republican party is definitely going to have to change their logo to the one that was familiar in 1930s Germany -- which I shall not mention my name.
Oh, good- I was worried for a minute that Texas was going to sit back and just 𝘭𝘦𝘵 Florida win the race to the bottom. Nice to see there's still some competition.
https://media.tenor.com/KDaZoE40xPUAAAAd/babylon5-b5.gif
As a married homeowner in Texas with five kids, I wouldn't mind that sizeable chunk of change, but it ain't worth this Nazi bullshit.
Quick OT
A plane fueled with hydrogen made a successful test flight over Moses Lake here.
Wait a minute. An aircraft filled with hydrogen and passengers like the Hindenburg? What could go wrong?
Fortunately, Moses Lake didn't equate to Lakehurst.
I keep on telling people that this kind of big "idea" is always rooted in misogyny that lives cheek by jowl with religious fanaticism.
And just as I posted elsewhere this week, the next item on the agenda for these wingnuts is divorce. Considering how many Catholics sit on the SC, you can count on it.
As if, for one thing, a woman will have any physical health left after giving birth to 10 kids. These men seem to think giving birth is a walk in the park.
Big Christian families like the Duggars and the Turpins, you mean?
Yeah, 'tis the season for political theater. This bill is so laden with nonsensical discrimination that it has no hope of passing or surviving a legal challenge if it did. This is just for resume boosting.
𝐼𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑜 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡...𝐴𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛, 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠𝑛’𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒. 𝑁𝑒𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑜 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑠.
I bet they do care. I bet he knows this disproportionally helps whites, and sees that as a feature not a bug. Now, Texas has no state income tax, so I'm not sure what other sort of personal tax break they could reasonably give. Arguably, property tax is the only big individual, state, tax pot to go after. But I would bet money that if some financial analysis showed that a property tax reduction would help blacks and hispancs more than whites, he'd withdraw this bill so fast Einstein would get upset his theory was broken.
“ Slaton, who is a former minister…”
Um….why is he a “former” minister? That alone raises a great big red flag. Soviet-sized!
Can anyone say "delusional?"
Why can't we bar religious leaders from government positions again?
Maybe it's confirmation bias, but it seems all too often like we get the worst legislation out of politicians who were or are some sort of religious leader - as in, pastor, rabbi, elder, etc. I feel like this should be a violation of the separation of church and state, even if it's technically not one; it seems like too many of them just don't, won't, or can't see a difference between their religious ideals and the rule of law. Good governance requires the ability to compromise, being faithful to a religious ideology precludes that ability. In theory, at least, it seems to me that anyone good at being a religious leader is going to make a lousy politician and vice versa.
Of course, getting elected as a religious leader is usually easier from what I can tell, so I guess that's why it keeps happening. Pardon me, I'm going to go bang my head on my desk for a bit.
must be another day ending in Y.
https://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/crime/former-pastor-and-coach-pleads-guilty-to-child-exploitation/amp/