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

[Immanuel]

Being for less government does not equate to being for no government.

NYC makes a good point but he is not exactly correct. I think he would have been more correct if he had said most people just want less of other people's government.

I think most people do want less government interference they just don't want their particular "sacred cows" touched.

Immie

 

[iamwhatiseem]

.

 

[DaGoose]

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?

Nice way to cherry pick for your favored issues.

What about gubmint controlling my personal life, in expropriating the fruits of my labor, to feather the nests of people who've done nothing to earn them?

How about controlling my live by telling me what recreational drugs I can ingest?

How about controlling the lives of bar and restaurant owners, in telling them which perfectly legal behaviors their patrons may or may not participate in on their premises?

How about gubmint controlling my life, insofar as coercing me to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets are concerned?

How about gubmint controlling my life, as they confiscate my property as they see fit for commercial development?

I see you "cherry picked" a few yourself!! Did I not say in the OP that there were more?

I don't see how the first one "controls your personal life".

The next three I agree with whole heartily.

The last one would depend on the reason for eminent domain.

 

[Oddball]

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?

Nice way to cherry pick for your favored issues.

What about gubmint controlling my personal life, in expropriating the fruits of my labor, to feather the nests of people who've done nothing to earn them?

How about controlling my live by telling me what recreational drugs I can ingest?

How about controlling the lives of bar and restaurant owners, in telling them which perfectly legal behaviors their patrons may or may not participate in on their premises?

How about gubmint controlling my life, insofar as coercing me to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets are concerned?

How about gubmint controlling my life, as they confiscate my property as they see fit for commercial development?

I see you "cherry picked" a few yourself!! Did I not say in the OP that there were more?

I don't see how the first one "controls your personal life".

The next three I agree with whole heartily.

The last one would depend on the reason for eminent domain.

I cherry picked to demonstrate a point...You have your criteria and I have mine.

I'll stack mine up against yours, insofar as it comes to the greatest range of individual freedom and liberty, any day of the week.

 

[DaGoose]

Because abortion, Terri Schiavo and euthanasia are murder and bare minimum for government is to protect her citizens from murder. I'm for less government but not for anarchy.

I guess it depends on whose shoes you're in.

Unless you're the woman's doctor you have no say over what she and her doctor decide what is best. Yet you want the government to come in and take control.

Unless it's your spouse that is lying there suffering needlessly with no hope of recovery or like Terri Schiavo then again, you have no say unless it's your spouse or doctor. Yet again you want government to step in and take control.

And I fail to see how these issues would be cause for "anarchy"?

 

[DaGoose]

Nice way to cherry pick for your favored issues.

What about gubmint controlling my personal life, in expropriating the fruits of my labor, to feather the nests of people who've done nothing to earn them?

How about controlling my live by telling me what recreational drugs I can ingest?

How about controlling the lives of bar and restaurant owners, in telling them which perfectly legal behaviors their patrons may or may not participate in on their premises?

How about gubmint controlling my life, insofar as coercing me to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets are concerned?

How about gubmint controlling my life, as they confiscate my property as they see fit for commercial development?

I see you "cherry picked" a few yourself!! Did I not say in the OP that there were more?

I don't see how the first one "controls your personal life".

The next three I agree with whole heartily.

The last one would depend on the reason for eminent domain.

I cherry picked to demonstrate a point...You have your criteria and I have mine.

I'll stack mine up against yours, insofar as it comes to the greatest range of individual freedom and liberty, any day of the week.

Alright then but so far I'm winning!! I have all of mine and agree with most of yours so my stack is already bigger.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[DaGoose]

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.

I mentioned these items in another thread but that's what give me the idea to create this thread.

As far as marriage the same goes for heterosexual couples as far as entering into relationships. But gay couples are denied the right to legalize their relationship by force of government law. Why should the government deny something as personal as that?

I will clarify that by "government" I mean local, state and federal bodies. I dislike the federal government telling me I can't end my life my own way with dignity just as much as the state telling me I have to wear a seatbelt and the local that tells businesses they can't allow smoking.

 

[Avatar4321]

changing your argument doesn't prove your point. Quite the opposite. I presume that you now admit that recognizing "same sex" marriage would constitute more government control?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

.

That's insane. If gay marriage were legal, homosexuals could still 'enter into or dissolve any relationship they want without permission or application ot the government'.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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?

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[hortysir]

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.