You're NOT small government

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Mar 16, 2010
59,455
6,792
1,900
The Good insane United states of America
You're Not small government if you aim to force religious fascism down peoples throats. Pretty much meaning that you wish to tell everyone how to live their life(what gender, and 50 million other things), marry who they wish or fight a police state war on drugs(which I do say is against the the constitution as the state has to much power to enter your home without warrants). How exactly are you small government? You're anti-poor but anti-government? Give me a break.

You're just pro-rich and pro-corporate take over of everything even if it hurts 75% of the rest of this country by doing so. You're just as fascist as Putin when it comes to human rights and freedom.

Believe it or not, I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.
 
You're Not small government if you aim to force religious fascism down peoples throats. Pretty much meaning that you wish to tell everyone how to live their life(what gender, and 50 million other things), marry who they wish or fight a police state war on drugs(which I do say is against the the constitution as the state has to much power to enter your home without warrants). How exactly are you small government? You're anti-poor but anti-government? Give me a break.

You're just pro-rich and pro-corporate take over of everything even if it hurts 75% of the rest of this country by doing so. You're just as fascist as Putin when it comes to human rights and freedom.

Believe it or not, I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.
Why does the fanatical left do all that?
 
Matty, you're increasingly making less and less sense and sounding more and more hysterical -- just saying
 
tyranny is tyranny weather it comes from the right or the left. you are correct that there are big government types on the right(the bush family, for example, Peter King, Guliani), but if you compare the two sides as far as belief in personal freedom goes, the left is way more anti-liberty
 
Neocons who currently control the Republican Party, are not for 'Small/Less Government.' They have a lot more in common with Communists/Progressives, than they do real Conservatives. They fully support absolute Government domination of Citizens' lives. The GOP should purge the Neocons from the Party as soon as possible.
 
You're Not small government if you aim to force religious fascism down peoples throats. Pretty much meaning that you wish to tell everyone how to live their life(what gender, and 50 million other things), marry who they wish or fight a police state war on drugs(which I do say is against the the constitution as the state has to much power to enter your home without warrants). How exactly are you small government? You're anti-poor but anti-government? Give me a break.

You're just pro-rich and pro-corporate take over of everything even if it hurts 75% of the rest of this country by doing so. You're just as fascist as Putin when it comes to human rights and freedom.

Believe it or not, I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.
I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.

I tend to agree. In general, Libertarians tend not to dwell in the illusory realm of incongruous ideas. Many of them too are willing to acknowledge that their policy ideas won't work for everyone. Indeed, the only real problem I have with Libertarian ideology is that it is rather naive to human nature deriving from unjust yet extant historical kismet.
 
Matty, you're increasingly making less and less sense and sounding more and more hysterical -- just saying
You must be far right evangelical or fundamentalist as well over 60 years old.

Trying to force your brand of religion on everyone else through government is not small government.

It is large government fascism.
 
You're Not small government if you aim to force religious fascism down peoples throats. Pretty much meaning that you wish to tell everyone how to live their life(what gender, and 50 million other things), marry who they wish or fight a police state war on drugs(which I do say is against the the constitution as the state has to much power to enter your home without warrants). How exactly are you small government? You're anti-poor but anti-government? Give me a break.

You're just pro-rich and pro-corporate take over of everything even if it hurts 75% of the rest of this country by doing so. You're just as fascist as Putin when it comes to human rights and freedom.

Believe it or not, I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.

It's not a religion to say that there are two genders. It's science. But you hate science so you ignore that.
 
You're Not small government if you aim to force religious fascism down peoples throats. Pretty much meaning that you wish to tell everyone how to live their life(what gender, and 50 million other things), marry who they wish or fight a police state war on drugs(which I do say is against the the constitution as the state has to much power to enter your home without warrants). How exactly are you small government? You're anti-poor but anti-government? Give me a break.

You're just pro-rich and pro-corporate take over of everything even if it hurts 75% of the rest of this country by doing so. You're just as fascist as Putin when it comes to human rights and freedom.

Believe it or not, I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.

What exactly are we trying to force in you twit?
 
You're Not small government if you aim to force religious fascism down peoples throats. Pretty much meaning that you wish to tell everyone how to live their life(what gender, and 50 million other things), marry who they wish or fight a police state war on drugs(which I do say is against the the constitution as the state has to much power to enter your home without warrants). How exactly are you small government? You're anti-poor but anti-government? Give me a break.

You're just pro-rich and pro-corporate take over of everything even if it hurts 75% of the rest of this country by doing so. You're just as fascist as Putin when it comes to human rights and freedom.

Believe it or not, I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.
Name one Republican that wants to do that, Mathew.
 
Matty, you're increasingly making less and less sense and sounding more and more hysterical -- just saying
You must be far right evangelical or fundamentalist as well over 60 years old.

Trying to force your brand of religion on everyone else through government is not small government.

It is large government fascism.
No Republican is doing that, shit for brains.
 
You're Not small government if you aim to force religious fascism down peoples throats. Pretty much meaning that you wish to tell everyone how to live their life(what gender, and 50 million other things), marry who they wish or fight a police state war on drugs(which I do say is against the the constitution as the state has to much power to enter your home without warrants). How exactly are you small government? You're anti-poor but anti-government? Give me a break.

You're just pro-rich and pro-corporate take over of everything even if it hurts 75% of the rest of this country by doing so. You're just as fascist as Putin when it comes to human rights and freedom.

Believe it or not, I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.
I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.

I tend to agree. In general, Libertarians tend not to dwell in the illusory realm of incongruous ideas. Many of them too are willing to acknowledge that their policy ideas won't work for everyone. Indeed, the only real problem I have with Libertarian ideology is that it is rather naive to human nature deriving from unjust yet extant historical kismet.
Nothing works for everyone, especially government programs and laws designed to control you.
 
tyranny is tyranny weather it comes from the right or the left. you are correct that there are big government types on the right(the bush family, for example, Peter King, Guliani), but if you compare the two sides as far as belief in personal freedom goes, the left is way more anti-liberty
if you compare the two sides as far as belief in personal freedom goes, the left is way more anti-liberty

I don't think that's at all so. What I think is that the left opposes what it considers contumelious thought whereas the right decries what it deems louche behavior. I see neither approach more nor less confining.
 
You're Not small government if you aim to force religious fascism down peoples throats. Pretty much meaning that you wish to tell everyone how to live their life(what gender, and 50 million other things), marry who they wish or fight a police state war on drugs(which I do say is against the the constitution as the state has to much power to enter your home without warrants). How exactly are you small government? You're anti-poor but anti-government? Give me a break.

You're just pro-rich and pro-corporate take over of everything even if it hurts 75% of the rest of this country by doing so. You're just as fascist as Putin when it comes to human rights and freedom.

Believe it or not, I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.

What on earth are you rambling about?
 
You're Not small government if you aim to force religious fascism down peoples throats. Pretty much meaning that you wish to tell everyone how to live their life(what gender, and 50 million other things), marry who they wish or fight a police state war on drugs(which I do say is against the the constitution as the state has to much power to enter your home without warrants). How exactly are you small government? You're anti-poor but anti-government? Give me a break.

You're just pro-rich and pro-corporate take over of everything even if it hurts 75% of the rest of this country by doing so. You're just as fascist as Putin when it comes to human rights and freedom.

Believe it or not, I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.

What on earth are you rambling about?
Read it again.
 
You're Not small government if you aim to force religious fascism down peoples throats. Pretty much meaning that you wish to tell everyone how to live their life(what gender, and 50 million other things), marry who they wish or fight a police state war on drugs(which I do say is against the the constitution as the state has to much power to enter your home without warrants). How exactly are you small government? You're anti-poor but anti-government? Give me a break.

You're just pro-rich and pro-corporate take over of everything even if it hurts 75% of the rest of this country by doing so. You're just as fascist as Putin when it comes to human rights and freedom.

Believe it or not, I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.

What on earth are you rambling about?
I construed the OP as follows:
  • Conservatives penchant for promulgating and implementing enforcement systems for restrictions and mandates on individual choices such as, but presumably not limited to:
    • Thou shalt not express one's gender identity.
    • Thou shalt not engage in sexual activity with other adults of the same sex.
    • Thou shalt be Christian. [This one is particularly hypocritical insofar as the second most important commandment in Christianity is rarely consistent with conservative proscriptions and ideology.]
    • The government shalt adopt and enforce the mores defined by a faith-based belief system.
    • Thou shalt not use recreational drugs and thou shalt support and permit police enforcement -- regardless of their doing so abrogating one or several rights granted in the Bill of Rights -- of that proscription.
  • Conservatives also claim to want the government to have a smaller role in the lives of the governed.
I construed from the remarks in the OP that the OP-er sees those two top-level aims as incongruous. A smaller "footprint" by government cannot be achieved by a government that enacts legislation telling citizens what they can and cannot do and that must, in turn, effect the apparatus to enforce those mandates/proscriptions thus promulgated, thereby bringing the U.S. closer to being a fascist state. The OP-er, furthermore, believes that by thinking and acting as described, conservatives are intellectually and rhetorically dishonest with themselves and (insultingly so) with others whom conservatives think should, using the same disingenuously fractured rationale conservatives do, arrive at the same conclusions. Lastly, the OP-er expressed that, in his/her opinion, the reason conservatives exhibit the irrationality and unprincipled mindsets and behaviors noted is because conservatives aim only to boost their personal financial status and that they have no genuine concern for our nation's poor and disadvantaged.

That's what I think the OP-er sought to communicate in his/her OP. ScienceRocks will have to confirm whether I've accurately and completely explained the ideas of the OP.
 
You're Not small government if you aim to force religious fascism down peoples throats. Pretty much meaning that you wish to tell everyone how to live their life(what gender, and 50 million other things), marry who they wish or fight a police state war on drugs(which I do say is against the the constitution as the state has to much power to enter your home without warrants). How exactly are you small government? You're anti-poor but anti-government? Give me a break.

You're just pro-rich and pro-corporate take over of everything even if it hurts 75% of the rest of this country by doing so. You're just as fascist as Putin when it comes to human rights and freedom.

Believe it or not, I respect the kind of libertarians that want to end the war on drugs, legalize pot and don't give a flip about marriage. They're honest.

What on earth are you rambling about?

Your question above is but the most recent example of something I've noticed fairly often here on USMB.
  • When someone like me bothers to fully and clearly express their thoughts on complex or somewhat complex topics, people complain that the post is too long.
  • When someone like ScienceRocks presents their thoughts in a "quick and dirty" manner, folks respond as though they haven't any idea of what the writer was trying to convey, one way of doing so being that which you used -- declaring the post as rambling.
It can't work both ways. Either readers can and will, with regard to complicated topics that integrate/span multiple behaviors, policies and circumstances, consistently make sound inferences by reading between the lines of casually presented ideas, or they will eschew doing so and demand expositions be presented in standard compositional form.

What is both appropriate and fair is that readers here respect the fact that each member comes here with their own communication style, regardless of how well it aligns with what one's own approach be. I, for instance, am not going to ever deliberately oversimplify my expositions on complex topics. Others are routinely going to do so. When I read a post, I'll do the best I can to make sound inferences about what the writer may mean, and when I find I cannot make sound inferences, I'll either chide, rebuke or refute the ideas expressed based in part on their incompleteness, lack of focus, or I'll solicit that the OP expound further. (Here's one example of my doing the latter.)

Lastly, no, I'm not ridiculing you for requesting clarification. I'm ridiculing your "colored" way of having done so without also providing support for the "color." The OP is anything but rambling. On the contrary, it's, IMO, overly brief because the OP assumed members here would, in reading it, maturely exhibit discursive integrity, rational inference making, and have an objective awareness of the behaviors and admonitions of conservatives. In short, the OP relied on readers' rectitude. (That's something I rarely here do because it leaves the door open for too much legitimate quibbling that can be preempted.)
 

Forum List

Back
Top