Are Republicans Really for Smaller Government?

[Lars]

Lars:

I Really did TRY and watch your video, but it's the pits dude. I only got as far as Lincoln because a change of $63.6M from $45M in domestic spending IS NOT 141%. It's a 41% increase.. Can't waste time on mathematically illiterate number throwing..

So I don't know what you're selling, but fix it and try again..

As far as REPs being FOR smaller govt, -- NO -- but they are better than undeclared socialism. And IF there were alternatives and not a 2 party monopoly, I'd be listening. But even the Libertarians are beset with rigormortus of the principle..

You clearly didn't listen carefully, those portions are a percentage of the original, not an added increase. Don't throw out the illiteracy card when you aren't reading the text boxes posted in the video.

I am selling the fact that Republicans have historically supported a program of larger government, and that by voting republican, you are culpable in the growth of government. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result.

"rigormortus" isn't a word. If you are going to pretend to be an enlightened moderate, supporting cutting off two fingers instead of four, at least use real words.

 

[flacaltenn]

Lars:

I Really did TRY and watch your video, but it's the pits dude. I only got as far as Lincoln because a change of $63.6M from $45M in domestic spending IS NOT 141%. It's a 41% increase.. Can't waste time on mathematically illiterate number throwing..

So I don't know what you're selling, but fix it and try again..

As far as REPs being FOR smaller govt, -- NO -- but they are better than undeclared socialism. And IF there were alternatives and not a 2 party monopoly, I'd be listening. But even the Libertarians are beset with rigormortus of the principle..

You clearly didn't listen carefully, those portions are a percentage of the original, not an added increase. Don't throw out the illiteracy card when you aren't reading the text boxes posted in the video.

I am selling the fact that Republicans have historically supported a program of larger government, and that by voting republican, you are culpable in the growth of government. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result.

"rigormortus" isn't a word. If you are going to pretend to be an enlightened moderate, supporting cutting off two fingers instead of four, at least used real words.

'Nother clue Bro.. If you want folks to sit thru a long political diatribe, it's best NOT to go attacking their spelling of rigor mortis. OR questioning their mathematic fluency. (Bad decision dude in this case). OR assuming I'm a moderate. Like you I'm defined by negatives. Like I'm NOT a repub or I'm NOT a Demo. Or Reps are NOT small govt. Really negative stuff like that.

The math claim was seriously flawed. The point was that Lincoln increased non-defense spending from $45M to $63.6M which the jerk declares "represents a 141% INCREASE".

Lars -- do you know what 100% increase represents?

And this was supposed to impress me because...???? The nation was in a shambles from a horrific war? Wake up -- there are NO good choices.. I'm gonna reclaim the "Liberal" mantle back to when it meant "individual sovereignty" and "basic distrust of govt" and go into competition with the other "choices"...

 

[spectrumc01]

No. Well, it depends. As with both parties it depends on whether or not they support the issue. Take the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security for example. Both are hugely unnecessary growths of government, but you'd be hard pressed to find a Republican/Conservative that doesn't support them.

If you want to see Republicans/Conservatives rail against Homeland Security just mention the TSA.

 

[Lars]

Lars:

I Really did TRY and watch your video, but it's the pits dude. I only got as far as Lincoln because a change of $63.6M from $45M in domestic spending IS NOT 141%. It's a 41% increase.. Can't waste time on mathematically illiterate number throwing..

So I don't know what you're selling, but fix it and try again..

As far as REPs being FOR smaller govt, -- NO -- but they are better than undeclared socialism. And IF there were alternatives and not a 2 party monopoly, I'd be listening. But even the Libertarians are beset with rigormortus of the principle..

You clearly didn't listen carefully, those portions are a percentage of the original, not an added increase. Don't throw out the illiteracy card when you aren't reading the text boxes posted in the video.

I am selling the fact that Republicans have historically supported a program of larger government, and that by voting republican, you are culpable in the growth of government. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result.

"rigormortus" isn't a word. If you are going to pretend to be an enlightened moderate, supporting cutting off two fingers instead of four, at least used real words.

'Nother clue Bro.. If you want folks to sit thru a long political diatribe, it's best NOT to go attacking their spelling of rigor mortis. OR questioning their mathematic fluency. (Bad decision dude in this case). OR assuming I'm a moderate. Like you I'm defined by negatives. Like I'm NOT a repub or I'm NOT a Demo. Or Reps are NOT small govt. Really negative stuff like that.

The math claim was seriously flawed. The point was that Lincoln increased non-defense spending from $45M to $63.6M which the jerk declares "represents a 141% INCREASE".

Lars -- do you know what 100% increase represents?

And this was supposed to impress me because...???? The nation was in a shambles from a horrific war? Wake up -- there are NO good choices.. I'm gonna reclaim the "Liberal" mantle back to when it meant "individual sovereignty" and "basic distrust of govt" and go into competition with the other "choices"...

Stop calling me bro or dude, I am not a fucking surfer bro or some spade rapper. Attacking you on your literacy is entirely appropriate since you brought literacy into the question, if you are going to use big words to pass yourself off as some pseudo-intellectual, use a dictionary to clarify any confusion on big latin words. And for someone who isn't a republican, you seem very rigorous to defend the father of the GOP.

The math claim is not flawed, read the text box. 63.6 is 141% of 45 million, read the text box. It isn't too hard, he explained his math, not really much more to say there. You are just distracting from the premise, which is that republican historically have grown government, by creating a strawman.

I am not trying to impress anybody. For someone who claims to dislike republicans, you seem to get uber-pissed when I criticize them.

 

[Flopper]

No. But conservatives are.

Last time I check, there was no C by candidates name, usually just an R or D.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Are Republicans Really for Smaller Government?

Only when it suits them. When it doesn't they're as quick to use the government to force their agenda as anyone else.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No. Republicans are for global fascist dictatorship, wars, and surveillance.

Conservatives claim to be for smaller government because they like economic freedom, but when it comes to social issues, they want to control every aspect of your lives.


.

But do they really favor economic freedom? There are plenty of examples to prove that that's false.

Got a few?

Bush and Tarp, Nixon and wage and price controls. Of course, this goes back to my earlier question of what constitutes a "conservative." Though conservatives would have been the ones to support these candidates so whether or not these people are conservatives is a debatable point.

 

[bripat9643]

You didn't even watch the video, how can I take your notion that "conservative" republican presidents over history have shrunk the size of government seriously.

You are just intellectually lazy, though I would expect no less from a "conservative".

Who says Republican politicians are for smaller government? They're politicians, for Christ's sake!

By the time someone is elected to the office of President, he's made so many compromises with any principles he may have once had that he's indistinguishable from a $0.25 hooker.

 

[bripat9643]

Bush and Tarp, Nixon and wage and price controls. Of course, this goes back to my earlier question of what constitutes a "conservative." Though conservatives would have been the ones to support these candidates so whether or not these people are conservatives is a debatable point.

Neither Bush nor Nixon were conservatives. That's why electing Romney would be disastrous. He campaigns as a conservative, but I haven't noted a single principled bone in his body.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry Lars (no longer Dude)..

The math claim is not flawed, read the text box. 63.6 is 141% of 45 million, read the text box. It isn't too hard, he explained his math, not really much more to say there.

Are you embarrassed yet? You're not gonna gain an inch of ground on either party by shouting out seriously flawed mathematical claims.. I'm not defending Lincoln, I'm defending science and math. The same way I ridicule Palin for her aspirations, but spent a large chunk of last week defending her historical accuracy.

Again (pay attention now) its' a 41% increase
NOT a 141% increase..

 

[rdean]

Trying to drug test everyone in the country, monitor all pregnant women, create ever greater numbers of prison inmates, the Patriot Act, criminalize gays, introduce religion in public schools.

It's not that they want smaller government, they want a more "directed" government. Leave corporations and rich people alone. They want a kind of "Taliban Christian" government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Bush and Tarp, Nixon and wage and price controls. Of course, this goes back to my earlier question of what constitutes a "conservative." Though conservatives would have been the ones to support these candidates so whether or not these people are conservatives is a debatable point.

Neither Bush nor Nixon were conservatives. That's why electing Romney would be disastrous. He campaigns as a conservative, but I haven't noted a single principled bone in his body.

And yet conservatives supported Bush and Nixon.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not all Reps are for smaller government... just as not all Dems are for gay marriage and not all libertarians are for making heroin legal

 

[whitehall]

Maybe to a kid who ain't been anywhere a "smaller" government is a scary thing. The federal government consists of tens of thousands of little kingdoms called bureaucracies. The primary purpose of a bureaucracy is to get bigger and get more funding. We have little kingdoms all over the place that often compete with each other or do the same job. We can't go on snapping our fingers and appointing a new commission that never expires. We need to clean up the mess left by both republicans and democrats. Big jobs like eliminating the federal dept of education might be on the agenda or eliminating the bungling fools known collectively as the ATF might be a daunting assignment but for the time being we need to stop expanding and cut back where we can.

 

[Charles_Main]

Ford?

For a moment I was going to take you seriously.

But seriously

Republicans are not for smaller government. Conservatives are.

Please don't confuse the Two.

Exactly, I think some of these Liberals are so brainwashed they believe every single Republican is a Limited Government Conservative. I wish they were right, but unfortunately. Despite Rdeans claims to the contrary the Republican party is a coalition, with many differing View points.

You can go even further and talk about how Conservative has more than 1 meaning now. I mean Liberals tend to just lump us all together. Expose Fiscal Conservatism and Limited Government and they lump you in with Social Conservatives, and visa Versa.

 

[eflatminor]

No, Republican history proves they have not been for smaller government. But here's the important part: They better be in 2012 if they want to keep and/or gain power in Washington. We will destroy big spenders in the primaries regardless of the letter after their name. 2010 was but a shot across the bow.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think the 2010 election was a come to Jesus moment for the repubs. They either get the smaller gov't, reduce spending religion or they're toast next year. And I think they know it.

 

[Anachronism]

Trying to drug test everyone in the country, monitor all pregnant women, create ever greater numbers of prison inmates, the Patriot Act, criminalize gays, introduce religion in public schools.

It's not that they want smaller government, they want a more "directed" government. Leave corporations and rich people alone. They want a kind of "Taliban Christian" government.

I think you're right that Conservatives do want a more "directed" Government. Though I would suggest it's less "Christian" than Moralist, rdean; since it would seem that most Christians can't even be bothered to live up to the standards of their own religion. The one place where we would disagree is that it would leave Corporations and rich people alone. In fact my prefered system would probably run a large number of Corporations out of the United States and quite a few of the rich people as well.... by forcing them to convert to an America First & America Only mentality.

 

[Anachronism]

I think the 2010 election was a come to Jesus moment for the repubs. They either get the smaller gov't, reduce spending religion or they're toast next year. And I think they know it.

What makes you believe that, since most of the newly elected "tea partiers" have already tossed their souls down the toilet that is Washington DC insider politics?

 

[txlonghorn]

YouTube - ‪Are Republicans Really for Smaller Government?‬‏

Some are...

Are you suggesting that all members of a certain party are ALL going to think or believe exactly the same?

If so, then all democrats are for socialism, abortion and completely defunding the military.

The opinions of some do not define the opinions of all in any party, race or religion.

As a republican, I support the notion that when our government controls too much of it's people's way of life, it takes away the very freedoms that we enjoy. I don't want the White House telling me what I can eat or can't eat. I don't want the White House telling me how to raise my children. I don't want the White House in control of my TV or power consumption.

Will we outlaw salt and legalize dope? Will we be forced to pay inflated electrical costs because of the over regulation of coal production? Big government has the potential to do just that.