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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

*
 
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?


Ideally, the government exists to defend the borders, maintain the domestic tranquility and care for the infirm insofar as the society at large cannot or will not.

I don't care in any way whatsoever what a woman does with her own body, what a family decides in regard to their members or the legality of civil unions as long as it costs me nothing and does not hurt anybody outside of the decision maker.

Regarding euthanasia, lacking a living will or the consent of the soon to be snuffed, is this not considered murder?

Your strawman is smokescreen.
 
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.

It may be a real question, but not legitimate. You must first corrupt the Role of the Court and Imagine Powers for It that are not Original Powers, in order to claim the questions legitimate. Only by Usurping Power, and derailing due process could you claim the validity of the questions. Instead, why not use the Legislature to advance a cause? To examine an issue?
 
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.


He attended a church for 20 years and now says he never really agreed with the guy in charge. He promised to close Gitmo and yet it's still open. Out of Iraq. Still there. Win in Afghanistan. Getting worse. Capture Bin Laden. Still free. Less than 8. Close to 10. More jobs. Less jobs. It goes on.

It's not fighting for something. It's being right about something. Anything. He's been wrong about every freekin' thing he has undertaken. The guy is a train wreck. If he fights for something that he believes in, 1, he needs to figure out what that means and, 2, he needs to not have it go belly up like every other thing he's done.

It's pretty obvious that he's against what the majority of Americans want and supports what the majority of Americans don't want. What is it you want him to fight for?
 
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.

It may be a real question, but not legitimate. You must first corrupt the Role of the Court and Imagine Powers for It that are not Original Powers, in order to claim the questions legitimate. Only by Usurping Power, and derailing due process could you claim the validity of the questions. Instead, why not use the Legislature to advance a cause? To examine an issue?

Leading to what? Amendments or refining the Law(s)?
 
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.
Obama's not going to fight. He expects people to cooperate with him because he tells them to. When they don't, he gets pouty.
 
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.
Never mind what the Constitution mandates.
 
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.

Slapping around his detractors is what he already does...and he whines like a petulant child when he is met with resistance.

Even Obama proclaimed "I am not king..." So I guess the Hugo Chavez route is more palatable in your mind?
 
The right wing is constantly looking for new laws and new ways to control people. If they would mind their own business, then women would control their own bodies without government interference. Gays would get married without laws saying they can't. If someone terminally ill wanted to end the strain on their family and stop the pain, the government shouldn't even be involved. Then there is the patriot act.
Stop the radical right wing totalitarian agenda, and government shrinks by half.
 
The right wing is constantly looking for new laws and new ways to control people. If they would mind their own business, then women would control their own bodies without government interference. Gays would get married without laws saying they can't. If someone terminally ill wanted to end the strain on their family and stop the pain, the government shouldn't even be involved. Then there is the patriot act.
Stop the radical right wing totalitarian agenda, and government shrinks by half.

rdean, if you really want to end the strain you put on your family and stop the pain, I'm not going to stop you. I'd highly recommend against it though. You shouldn't give up on life
 
The right wing is constantly looking for new laws and new ways to control people. If they would mind their own business, then women would control their own bodies without government interference. Gays would get married without laws saying they can't. If someone terminally ill wanted to end the strain on their family and stop the pain, the government shouldn't even be involved. Then there is the patriot act.
Stop the radical right wing totalitarian agenda, and government shrinks by half.

Project much? You are so much the idiot.:lol:
 
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.

It may be a real question, but not legitimate. You must first corrupt the Role of the Court and Imagine Powers for It that are not Original Powers, in order to claim the questions legitimate. Only by Usurping Power, and derailing due process could you claim the validity of the questions. Instead, why not use the Legislature to advance a cause? To examine an issue?

I'm not following you here. Which question is it that you say is an illegitimate one?

Since I'm not sure what you are arguing here, I can only suggest that having a legislative body "advance a cause" presumes that the legislative body first has actual authority in that area. But whether it does (or not) is a very big first question. They can examine anything they want. But they do not always have legitimate power to DO anything about it once they have "examined it."
 
The right wing is constantly looking for new laws and new ways to control people. If they would mind their own business, then women would control their own bodies without government interference. Gays would get married without laws saying they can't. If someone terminally ill wanted to end the strain on their family and stop the pain, the government shouldn't even be involved. Then there is the patriot act.
Stop the radical right wing totalitarian agenda, and government shrinks by half.

rdean, if you really want to end the strain you put on your family and stop the pain, I'm not going to stop you. I'd highly recommend against it though. You shouldn't give up on life

And aborgate responsibility to a body of elitists that don't even know deany's name...nor care that he exists...just control him indirectly for their gain.

Some day these people will understand when their liberty is just but a fond memory in the Statist museum of falied human experiments if the Statist has their way.
 
You can call me names. You can call me a liar. But you can't figure out what I lied about. Which is why you call me names. So stop flattering me. It makes me blush.
 

Forum List

Back
Top