2008 Platform (filtered to pointless)

Should not label terrorism the "greatest" threat. That is unproven.

Profiling's usefulness is unproven, and permissibility must be determined within existing legal framework. It is a polarizing issue and should not be pushed in the platform.

Protecting Constitutional rights is a generic expectation of all government officials and does not need mentioning here. The war on terrorists is about a lot more than Constitutional rights.

The consequence for terrorist activity is already clear: we will destroy you.

Revision of Patriot Act handled separately.

Interjurisdictional agreements are not permanent. If it turns out that one inappropriately limits the governor's powers, we can simply pull out.

There is no credible movement to rescind this popular and traditional exemption.

Being registered to vote says little about one's appropriateness for jury service.

Um, maybe try Google?

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is part of conservative philosophy and does not need to be repeated with planks like this.

The whole reason we have to "enforce" the platform is because it is so flawed.

Let's adopt a rational platform, and the problem will disappear.

And the idea of "enforcing"? Huh? Why would local voters care about the SREC's opinion of a candidate?

The House and Senate already have the right to compel attendance. Existing political processes are sufficient to not reward deserters.

However, like the filibuster, deserting is a valid expression of extreme political opinion.

Annoying speech is still protected speech. It is a dangerous precedent to establish politically correct forms of free expression. That's copying a tactic of despotic regimes like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba.

What is absent from the larger debate is the flag is a symbol. Nobody died for a symbol, they died for what it represents.

Enacting this amendment defiles what the flag represents: curtailing free speech is orders of magnitude more harmful than desecrating a symbol.

The problems that cause divorce cannot be solved with more red tape. This is a problem for the church and the people.

No-fault in fact ended the chicanery and legal fictions that enabled the practice anyway.

Furthermore, personal morality is the prerogative of the church and the individual, not the government.

There is no credible movement to change marriage other than the ongoing debate about gay marriage, and that is handled in the Family and Defense of Marriage plank.

All abortions are a tragedy. All casual abortions, mainly those used as a substitute for effective use of birth control, are a grievous violation of the right to life.

Abortions should be permitted for other reasons, including when the mother's life is endangered or when the fetus is not viable.

Pregnancies resulting from rape, while rare, involve complex moral dilemmas. In those cases, we should respect the privacy of the mother and allow her to decide the best outcome. We can take solace that some studies suggest most rape-induced pregnancies are carried to term.

The judiciary is to interpret and apply laws. Earlier planks also call for judicial restraint. Expecting the judiciary to pursue a social policy agenda is judicial activism, not judicial restraint. Liberalism is still liberal even when it benefits a conservative cause.

Mandating artificial sustenance is a violation of basic human rights. Withholding artificial sustenance may be merited when an unresponsive patient has no no chance of survival. Ultimately, this is a decision for the patient (as previously arranged in a living will) or that patient's spouse or family, not the government.

The mention of handicapped persons is unjustifiable. There is no credible movement to murder handicapped people by withholding nutrition.

On the 7 enumerated points:

• Point 1 is incorporated into the proposed revision.
• Points 2, 6, and 7 are redundant with the clearly stated point of the plank.
• Point 3 is problematic. The genetic diagnosis may confirm a condition that is incompatible with life.
• Points 4 and 5 are a bad precedent. Abortion facilities should only be regulated commensurate with the risk to mothers, and these laws only creates legal fictions and chicaneries. Focus on these laws creates new bureaucracies and regulations, just like liberals, and also distracts from the main goal of banning most abortions.

Providing adequate quantities of a required document is just a function of good government. Conservatives support good government.

Where is the requirement to perform abortions?

This proposal will mandate useless treatment. This pointless waste saves no lives and drives up everyone's health care costs.

Current law provides due process: after the hospital renders a decision, it mandates a 10 day period of continued care to find a new facility. It also allows a state judge to extend this period if it is likely that a willing care provider can be found. This process is generally only started after extensive treatment.

There is no evidence of any death caused by this act other than that which would have already happened due to a terminal state.

Tirhas Habtegiris is the poster child of the counterargument and may be the basis of this law. A poor, black immigrant, her case has been twisted beyond recognition by Democrat-leaning publications like Daily Kos. She was simply a terminally ill, unconscious patient. The facts became unhinged from reality.

Foster homes are temporary arrangements. Their practices must be consistent with societal norms to minimize disruption for the children.

The following logical syllogism is a guess by this site's author, but here goes:

1. The vast majority of parents do not home school their children.
2. The vast majority of home schooling households are healthy and caring.
3. Therefore: virtually no children in the foster system are accustomed to healthy home school environments.

If minimizing disruption is a goal, home schooling is inappropriate for the vast majority of foster children.

Allowing foster parents to corporally punish others' children is highly problematic and should not be promoted in the platform.

Harmful substances can and should be removed from the market. This includes supplements like ephedra.

There is no need for legislation to recognize alternative medicine for two reasons:

1. We clearly have the right to use alternative medicine therapies that are not known to cause harm.
2. Once alternative medicines are clinically proven to work, they are no longer "alternative."

It's already that way. It's called the Texas Public Information Act.

Makes little sense. What do "Judeo-Christian principles" have to do with band, vocational education, gym, mathematics, economics, etc.?

Many schools of thought, some of which were non-Abrahamic or only marginally Christian, inspired our system of government. Religion is rarely mentioned in Federalist Papers, and unambigious Judeo-Christian influence is not the norm.

Any fair assessment of English and history will by necessity include Judeo-Christian influence.

It is entirely unclear how any students are being abused by these surveys.

Money is money is money.

The US Supreme Court has twice ruled that the RICO Act or Hobbs Act cannot be used against abortion protectors. (source)

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act prevents use of intimidation or physical force and protects more than abortion clinic customers. It is dangerous and absurd to suggest that it's OK to use these tactics against law-abiding citizens.

Assault is already illegal.

Suggesting a governmental acknowledgement of God is necessary is pointless or dangerous. It either diminishes God to a petty character or it suggests an official government's role in promoting religion.

The idea of the separation of church and state being a myth is a dangerous and radically liberal concept.

Safeguards are already in place. For example, see the Motor Vehicle Records Disclosure Act (Texas Transportation Code Chapter 730) from 1997.

"Legislation should provide redress to anyone denied service for refusing to provide such information." This is grossly over-broad. Providing personal information may be necessary to prove one's identity.

Anyone can already "identify" cost savings. Any "cap" on spending can only come by electing disciplined legislators; any political measure will be overcome by undisciplined legislators.