US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Who REALLY Favors Less Government Interference In Our Lives???

This is a discussion on Who REALLY Favors Less Government Interference In Our Lives??? within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by DaGoose Because if you truly don't want the government to involve itself in our personal lives and decisions then.......... You oppose ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics

Politics Discuss government policies and candidates...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 07:54 AM
Dont Taz Me Bro's Avatar
Registered User
Member #21665
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 12,692
Thanks: 3,029
Thanked 6,820 Times in 3,782 Posts
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3597
Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute
Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by DaGoose View Post
Because if you truly don't want the government to involve itself in our personal lives and decisions then..........

You oppose efforts to outlaw abortion.

You oppose efforts to outlaw gay marriage.

You oppose efforts to outlaw euthanasia.

You opposed the Bush administration's involvement in the Terri Schiavo case.

You oppose laws against prostitution.


There are more but you get the idea. Each of the above items are very personal issues that belong to the individual, not the government.

And if anyone says they disagree with the above then they are actually in favor of more government control over our personal lives, right?

If not, why not?
I oppose the government intervening in all of those issues.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 07:54 AM
NYcarbineer's Avatar
Registered User
Member #18701
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 41,304
Thanks: 705
Thanked 8,294 Times in 6,217 Posts
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2609
NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute
NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute NYcarbineer has a reputation beyond repute
Conservatives like to call themselves the champions of smaller government, but how many conservatives want a smaller military? Most conservatives, if anything, want MORE military.
The implementation of the conservative size-of-government agenda would simply shrink one part of government to grow another.
__________________
"The devil triumphs when good men do naught."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to NYcarbineer For This Useful Post:
Dont Taz Me Bro (11-20-2010)
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 07:57 AM
Dont Taz Me Bro's Avatar
Registered User
Member #21665
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 12,692
Thanks: 3,029
Thanked 6,820 Times in 3,782 Posts
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3597
Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute
Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Sallow View Post
I hope President Obama grows a set and stops playing professor. Yeah..he needs to put up his mitts and fight.

They may hate his guts..but if he slaps them around a bit..they might just wind up respecting him.
I highly doubt that. Obama is hardly Bill Clinton. Clinton was politically savvy enough to blow with which ever way the political winds were blowing. Obama, on the other hand, is a true ideologue and he isn't going to abandon his unpopular agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 08:00 AM
Dont Taz Me Bro's Avatar
Registered User
Member #21665
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 12,692
Thanks: 3,029
Thanked 6,820 Times in 3,782 Posts
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3597
Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute
Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
Sounds good to me. But prostitution?
Why not? What business is it of the government if two people have sex for money? What's the difference between taking a women out to dinner and a movie and then fucking or just saving some time, giving her the money upfront and fucking? If two consenting adults want to have sex for money so what?
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 09:19 AM
RadiomanATL's Avatar
RadiomanATL@gmail.com
Member #19664
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not here
Posts: 24,950
Thanks: 905
Thanked 5,805 Times in 3,827 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1580
RadiomanATL has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by Avatar4321 View Post
Didn't you post this yesterday? Could have sworn I've seen it recently.

As I said then, opposing gay marriage is favoring less interference in our lives. Seriously, think about it.

Right now, homosexuals can enter into or dissolve any relationship they want without permission or application to the government.

You legalize so called same sex marriage, you are giving the government power to regulate their relationships. You are giving more power to the government.

You also need to understand the difference between a limited federal government and states rights. The Federal Government is constrained by the Constitution and rightly so. Any power not delegated to the Federal Government remains in the hands of the States.

State power is limited only by it's own Constitution and the limited restraints the US Constitution puts on it. Meaning if the people of a stay wanted to enact a stupid law, they have the right to enact a stupid law. Simply because it's stupid doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.
Actually, giving homosexuals to choice to marry (as far as that is a government construct) gives them the choice as to whether or not they want government in their lives.

I'm cool with giving people choices.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 09:25 AM
RadiomanATL's Avatar
RadiomanATL@gmail.com
Member #19664
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not here
Posts: 24,950
Thanks: 905
Thanked 5,805 Times in 3,827 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1580
RadiomanATL has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer View Post
Conservatives like to call themselves the champions of smaller government, but how many conservatives want a smaller military? Most conservatives, if anything, want MORE military.
The implementation of the conservative size-of-government agenda would simply shrink one part of government to grow another.
I'm cool with a smaller military. Budget-wise.

It's the largest bureaucracy out there. Hands down. Anyone who thinks that there isn't a large amount of fat to be cut behind the shroud of military spending is fooling themselves.

This doesn't mean less troops in the field necessarily.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 09:30 AM
rightwinger's Avatar
Sewer Worker
Member #20321
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 66,129
Thanks: 19,685
Thanked 22,351 Times in 14,621 Posts
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 10087
rightwinger has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by Dont Taz Me Bro View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
Sounds good to me. But prostitution?
Why not? What business is it of the government if two people have sex for money? What's the difference between taking a women out to dinner and a movie and then fucking or just saving some time, giving her the money upfront and fucking? If two consenting adults want to have sex for money so what?
Its something you can give away for free...but if you charge for it, its a crime

No business of the Government
__________________
.

If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 09:59 AM
Cecilie1200's Avatar
Registered User
Member #14617
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 18,540
Thanks: 4,084
Thanked 4,470 Times in 3,329 Posts
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2129
Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute
Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute Cecilie1200 has a reputation beyond repute
All right, since no one else has said it yet, allow me: who the hell died and left the OP in charge of deciding what the rest of us can and cannot consider the proper job of government?

As has been mentioned, "small government" does not mean "no government". Which, in turn, means that anyone who isn't advocating anarchy does believe that the government has SOME jobs it is proper for it to do. And believe it or not, it's none of your frigging business which jobs I happen to consider those to be, nor do you have any authority to tell me that I DON'T support small government merely because my list isn't the same as yours.

In conclusion, just let me add that anyone who thinks "small government" should mean that all governments at every level should get out of the business of regulating when and where people can be killed wins the prize for the most ignorant piece of drivel I've heard this week. Congratulations.
__________________
Knowledge is one of the few things that can be given to others without reducing the amount you have left.

A chalk outline is being drawn around common sense in this country, and most Americans can't even identify the victim. - Dennis Miller

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecilie1200 For This Useful Post:
hortysir (11-20-2010)
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 10:05 AM
Annie's Avatar
chillin
Member #401
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 50,607
Thanks: 5,340
Thanked 2,564 Times in 1,823 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1759
Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute
Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute Annie has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by Sallow View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by SwingVoter View Post
I'm with you, I want a lot less government, and Bush was a borrow-and-spend Socialist.

There is one known way to limit government - DIVIDE IT! Which we just did, so I look forward to Obama battling GOP Congressmen, if it's anything like Clinton vs. GOP, we'll be in much better shape in 6 years.
I hope President Obama grows a set and stops playing professor. Yeah..he needs to put up his mitts and fight.

They may hate his guts..but if he slaps them around a bit..they might just wind up respecting him.
This seemed to be on domestic policies, not his failed foreign policies.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 10:07 AM
hortysir's Avatar
The 2nd should be 1st
Member #23333
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gulfcoast FL
Posts: 15,371
Thanks: 5,071
Thanked 5,106 Times in 3,472 Posts
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 5 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4094
hortysir has a reputation beyond repute hortysir has a reputation beyond repute
hortysir has a reputation beyond repute hortysir has a reputation beyond repute hortysir has a reputation beyond repute hortysir has a reputation beyond repute hortysir has a reputation beyond repute hortysir has a reputation beyond repute hortysir has a reputation beyond repute hortysir has a reputation beyond repute hortysir has a reputation beyond repute hortysir has a reputation beyond repute hortysir has a reputation beyond repute
Thumbs up

Quote: Originally Posted by Cecilie1200 View Post
All right, since no one else has said it yet, allow me: who the hell died and left the OP in charge of deciding what the rest of us can and cannot consider the proper job of government?

As has been mentioned, "small government" does not mean "no government". Which, in turn, means that anyone who isn't advocating anarchy does believe that the government has SOME jobs it is proper for it to do. And believe it or not, it's none of your frigging business which jobs I happen to consider those to be, nor do you have any authority to tell me that I DON'T support small government merely because my list isn't the same as yours.

In conclusion, just let me add that anyone who thinks "small government" should mean that all governments at every level should get out of the business of regulating when and where people can be killed wins the prize for the most ignorant piece of drivel I've heard this week. Congratulations.
__________________
Quote: Originally Posted by rdean View Post
If the government controlled us, they would do a better job.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 10:17 AM
Intense's Avatar
Registered User
Member #20285
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 44,656
Thanks: 4,945
Thanked 13,265 Times in 9,647 Posts
Mentioned: 242 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 9985
Intense has disabled reputation
I really do believe in small government. We should return to Federalism. The Government should first focus on doing well what it is empowered to do, before taking on more responsibility, and only then by the consent of the Governed.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 10:17 AM
Banned
Member #6709
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 33,779
Thanks: 4,701
Thanked 3,233 Times in 2,461 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve
AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by DaGoose View Post
Because if you truly don't want the government to involve itself in our personal lives and decisions then..........

You oppose efforts to outlaw abortion.

You oppose efforts to outlaw gay marriage.

You oppose efforts to outlaw euthanasia.

You opposed the Bush administration's involvement in the Terri Schiavo case.

You oppose laws against prostitution.


There are more but you get the idea. Each of the above items are very personal issues that belong to the individual, not the government.

And if anyone says they disagree with the above then they are actually in favor of more government control over our personal lives, right?

If not, why not?
You fucking moron, reducing government interference is not the same as eliminating those laws which protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us.

Piece of shit. The only purpose of government is to protect the people. That's it. Not to protect them from themselves, not to control population, not to control the way they live...but to protect their lives and liberties from those who would take those rights from them.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AllieBaba For This Useful Post:
hortysir (11-20-2010)
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 10:18 AM
Banned
Member #6709
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 33,779
Thanks: 4,701
Thanked 3,233 Times in 2,461 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve
AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve AllieBaba could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by NYcarbineer View Post
Conservatives like to call themselves the champions of smaller government, but how many conservatives want a smaller military? Most conservatives, if anything, want MORE military.
The implementation of the conservative size-of-government agenda would simply shrink one part of government to grow another.
Link, idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 10:19 AM
Intense's Avatar
Registered User
Member #20285
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 44,656
Thanks: 4,945
Thanked 13,265 Times in 9,647 Posts
Mentioned: 242 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 9985
Intense has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by AllieBaba View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by DaGoose View Post
Because if you truly don't want the government to involve itself in our personal lives and decisions then..........

You oppose efforts to outlaw abortion.

You oppose efforts to outlaw gay marriage.

You oppose efforts to outlaw euthanasia.

You opposed the Bush administration's involvement in the Terri Schiavo case.

You oppose laws against prostitution.


There are more but you get the idea. Each of the above items are very personal issues that belong to the individual, not the government.

And if anyone says they disagree with the above then they are actually in favor of more government control over our personal lives, right?

If not, why not?
You fucking moron, reducing government interference is not the same as eliminating those laws which protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us.

Piece of shit. The only purpose of government is to protect the people. That's it. Not to protect them from themselves, not to control population, not to control the way they live...but to protect their lives and liberties from those who would take those rights from them.
Even though the Government is in denial of the issue, that does both include Corporate Wrong doing, and the wrong doings of Government itself.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2010, 10:21 AM
Locked Account.
Member #19862
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Mansion in Ravi's Head
Posts: 35,453
Thanks: 3,671
Thanked 10,647 Times in 7,512 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3545
Liability has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by DaGoose View Post
Because if you truly don't want the government to involve itself in our personal lives and decisions then..........

You oppose efforts to outlaw abortion.

You oppose efforts to outlaw gay marriage.

You oppose efforts to outlaw euthanasia.

You opposed the Bush administration's involvement in the Terri Schiavo case.

You oppose laws against prostitution.


There are more but you get the idea. Each of the above items are very personal issues that belong to the individual, not the government.

And if anyone says they disagree with the above then they are actually in favor of more government control over our personal lives, right?

If not, why not?
Rather simplistic.

Folks who "oppose government involvement in our personal lives" -- unlike the simplistic analysis offered in the OP -- often make distinctions based on some guiding principles.

Consider this minor example. A stop sign at an intersection is a form of government involvement in our lives, too. So is getting the driver's license and the registration and even the insurance -- since the gubmint makes us get insurance.

Lots of folks who articulate their opposition to government involvement in our lives nonetheless do not oppose the stops signs, the insurance requirement or the license and registration requirements.

Hm. Could it be, therefore, that the objection is NOT to "government involvement in our lives?" Could it be that the objection is when and where the "involvement" becomes UNDUE involvement?

Maybe (let's spitball this a bit) the objection is to the government transgressing the boundaries WE set on it. Personally, for example, I am in favor of our Constitutionally LIMITED government. {You know the story. It was in like ALL of the history books.} The Republic was set up -- by design -- to LIMIT the scope of the authority and power of the Federal government.

So, in that light, let's consider the OP premise again. Is there a proper role for the government to "involve itself" in the issue of "abortion?" Why, yes. One COULD make the case that it involves one of the VERY things we created our government to do. In the case of "abortion" laws, it is to give force and effect to the Constitutionally guaranteed right to life itself.

I will immediately GRANT you that the abortion issue is absolutely more complicated than just that. And that's fine. The point is that a reasonable argument can still be made that anti-abortion "rights" laws do come within the ambit of the limits we have imposed on the Government.

Whether or not the same kind of analysis can be articulated for "euthanasia" laws and for "gay marriage" legislation, etc., is the real question.
__________________
The very existence of Ravi is an argument in favor of burkas. Oh, and Zona is a liar. What a shock.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Liability For This Useful Post:
The T (11-20-2010)
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:01 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.