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

[Liability]

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.

Most of the time, nobody can even figure out whatever it is you seem to imagine you're saying, retardean.

 

[daveman]

But you can't figure out what I lied about.

Yet another lie.

Everything you "know" to be true about conservatives is false, based on irrational hatred and deliberate distortions of reality.

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

Link please.

Oh wait, it's rtard. Never mind. This comes straight from the befuddled hole that suffices as his brain.

 

[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?

You ******* 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.

Got it. You are down for favoring more government control over our private lives.

 

[rdean]

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.

Link please.

Oh wait, it's rtard. Never mind. This comes straight from the befuddled hole that suffices as his brain.

Some things you don't need a link for. They are just common sense.

Conservatives need to stay out of our lives.

 

[Liability]

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.

Link please.

Oh wait, it's rtard. Never mind. This comes straight from the befuddled hole that suffices as his brain.

Some things you don't need a link for. They are just common sense.

Conservatives need to stay out of our lives.

Wrong.

When YOU, of all people, say something, it is presumptively retarded and dishonest. Links are therefore absolutely required when it is YOU making such claims.

As for "common sense," you should not speak of matters so far above your limited abilities.

It is liberals who need to stop meddling.

 

[rdean]

Link please.

Oh wait, it's rtard. Never mind. This comes straight from the befuddled hole that suffices as his brain.

Some things you don't need a link for. They are just common sense.

Conservatives need to stay out of our lives.

Wrong.

When YOU, of all people, say something, it is presumptively retarded and dishonest. Links are therefore absolutely required when it is YOU making such claims.

As for "common sense," you should not speak of matters so far above your limited abilities.

It is liberals who need to stop meddling.

So women can't be trusted to have control over their own bodies without government intervention?

Gays shouldn't have equal rights?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Toooooooooooooooooo easy.....those ICON$ (of Capitali$m), for Teabaggers; nationwide!!!

Those individuals who ('Baggers insist) should be awarded Sainthood; the sooner, the better.

Those leeches who see this Country's National Treasure as their own, private Host.

DESPITE the Murdoch Street Journal's best-efforts.....it's (nearly) DYIN' TIME, for those PIG$!!!!!!!!​

November 21, 2010​

"Federal prosecutors in New York are in the advanced stages of an extensive insider-trading investigation that could lead to criminal charges against Wall Street traders and executives, federal law enforcement officials said Saturday.

Authorities had been preparing to file charges in the probe within weeks, but that timetable could be accelerated after an article about the investigation appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, the officials said.

The investigation, conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan and the FBI, has been underway for several years and extends far beyond Wall Street to financial offices across the countryhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112003499.html, the paper reported. Officials would not discuss specific companies or individuals under scrutiny or provide further details. The Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting a parallel civil probe, officials said."

​

 

[DaGoose]

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?

He's a liberal. He knows better than us. Just ask him.

I just pointed out some very obvious hypocritical stances by conservatives. Either you oppose those things in the OP or you favor government control over your private lives. This ain't rocket science, my friends.

And since you're not coming out in opposition to those things it can only mean you truly favor government control over your private lives, right or wrong?

 

[Liability]

Some things you don't need a link for. They are just common sense.

Conservatives need to stay out of our lives.

Wrong.

When YOU, of all people, say something, it is presumptively retarded and dishonest. Links are therefore absolutely required when it is YOU making such claims.

As for "common sense," you should not speak of matters so far above your limited abilities.

It is liberals who need to stop meddling.

So women can't be trusted to have control over their own bodies without government intervention?

Of course women can be trusted to have control over their own bodies. But that kind of begs the question. Who speaks for the pre-born babies? Since it appears that nobody speaks for them, maybe the Government has an obligation to step in, retardean.

Gays shouldn't have equal rights?

Where in ANYTHING I said, you dishonest asshole, did I contend that gays aren't entitled to equal rights? If you had the capacity for honesty (which you do not), you might have noted that my contention is that there MAY be cases -- which the OP falsely portrays as some outrageous governmental involvement in private lives -- which are actually instances where a proper reliance on the Constitution's provisions for a LIMITED GOVERNMENT justify such involvements.

So it works like this, you dishonest tool: IF the claim is made that the Federal Government has some valid authority to legislate on the issue of "gay rights," then the Government SHOULD be able to point to one of its enumerated powers to justify that claim.

 

[rdean]

Wrong.

When YOU, of all people, say something, it is presumptively retarded and dishonest. Links are therefore absolutely required when it is YOU making such claims.

As for "common sense," you should not speak of matters so far above your limited abilities.

It is liberals who need to stop meddling.

So women can't be trusted to have control over their own bodies without government intervention?

Of course women can be trusted to have control over their own bodies. But that kind of begs the question. Who speaks for the pre-born babies? Since it appears that nobody speaks for them, maybe the Government has an obligation to step in, retardean.

Gays shouldn't have equal rights?

Where in ANYTHING I said, you dishonest asshole, did I contend that gays aren't entitled to equal rights? If you had the capacity for honesty (which you do not), you might have noted that my contention is that there MAY be cases -- which the OP falsely portrays as some outrageous governmental involvement in private lives -- which are actually instances where a proper reliance on the Constitution's provisions for a LIMITED GOVERNMENT justify such involvements.

So it works like this, you dishonest tool: IF the claim is made that the Federal Government has some valid authority to legislate on the issue of "gay rights," then the Government SHOULD be able to point to one of its enumerated powers to justify that claim.

So women are incubators? They don't have the right to decide what happens to their bodies?

 

[mdn2000]

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?

Great example of circular logic there dumbass! All the things you list involve more government control, what a sorry excuse for a thread.

Jeez, I thought I started some dumbass threads, but you take the cake!

Hmmmmm....let's see.

YOU say that it takes more government control to leave people alone on personal decisions than to involve itself in them?

I can see why, with that logic, that you admit to starting dumbass threads. The first step to resolving an issue is admitting that you have a problem. Step one complete!!

So if Gay Marriage (Marriage is defined not by the government) is a personal decision that the government does not to be involved in than why is that an issue. They can exercise the "personal decision" without the government.

Abortion, leave people alone, you mean like 14 year olds, Abortion baby killers have the government pass laws allowing doctors to destroy the life inside the Uterus without parents permission. No government control. Hardly. Maybe one year we will discover the cause, the reason people need an abortion, if only we could discover the cause a cure would not be needed.

Efforts to outlaw Euthanasia, moral and philosophical question, to die or not to die. Nobody stops suicide, you can take steps to end your life if you wish, nobody stopping you there its just the *****-ass-wimps that want the Doctor's kill. I say take it to the Morgue, jump in the oven, cut out the middle man but some cowards want the government to make it law forcing doctors to kill. Take your own life, cowards.

Terry, poor Terry, still eating and breathing, government ordered her death, personal decision, the woman was eating, thats good enough for me, we did not need the government to order a citizen's death, but the Liberals won, set the precedent for government ordering death, I wonder if this is addressed in the Libel's ObamaCare.

Oppose laws against prostitution, I am actually for laws against prostitution. Did you get this right.

Nice example of Libel's stereotyping Conservatives.

 

[mdn2000]

So women can't be trusted to have control over their own bodies without government intervention?

Of course women can be trusted to have control over their own bodies. But that kind of begs the question. Who speaks for the pre-born babies? Since it appears that nobody speaks for them, maybe the Government has an obligation to step in, retardean.

Gays shouldn't have equal rights?

Where in ANYTHING I said, you dishonest asshole, did I contend that gays aren't entitled to equal rights? If you had the capacity for honesty (which you do not), you might have noted that my contention is that there MAY be cases -- which the OP falsely portrays as some outrageous governmental involvement in private lives -- which are actually instances where a proper reliance on the Constitution's provisions for a LIMITED GOVERNMENT justify such involvements.

So it works like this, you dishonest tool: IF the claim is made that the Federal Government has some valid authority to legislate on the issue of "gay rights," then the Government SHOULD be able to point to one of its enumerated powers to justify that claim.

So women are incubators? They don't have the right to decide what happens to their bodies?

Is that how you view life's beginning, if so, yes, your an incubator, nothing more, unless you can cook, clean, and keep your mouth shut. You know, not all of Islam's ideas are bad.

You have a right to decide what happens to your body, you do not have the right to decide what happens to another's body, yes you can decide.

Let me help you, when you have sex, I better define this as when a man's penis ejaculates semen into a woman's body, maybe about 3 minutes before that happens a woman has a choice to make, you have a right to decide, to have cheap sex for a thrill or not. At that point, at the time before sex, is when a woman decides.

After a woman is pregnant is a piss poor time.

Its time to demand women be responsible, we all know what causes pregnancy, we spent billions educated women, teaching them sex does lead to babies.

I see no valid reason for Abortion outside of extreme medical reasons, incest, or rape.

Quit fertilizing the eggs and you wont need to burden the rest of us with abortion and its detriment on society.

 

[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?

He's a liberal. He knows better than us. Just ask him.

I just pointed out some very obvious hypocritical stances by conservatives. Either you oppose those things in the OP or you favor government control over your private lives. This ain't rocket science, my friends.

And since you're not coming out in opposition to those things it can only mean you truly favor government control over your private lives, right or wrong?

No, dumbass. What you pointed out are things that YOU think conservatives shouldn't stand for. That doesn't make them hypocritical. That just makes them opposite of you. And as hard as this is for any leftist I've ever met to believe, you do NOT represent the sum total of all received wisdom.

Again, Mensa Boy, unless one is proposing that the only choices available are big government or anarchy, then OBVIOUSLY one believes that the government has SOME proper jobs to perform, which means it does have SOME appropriate influence on private lives. Can you say, "Duhhh" for us?

There's an enormous difference, visible to anyone who's not currently inspecting his own colon at close range, between "small but appropriate government" and "intrusive nanny government". And once again, Colon Inspector, who the **** died and left you in charge of defining what is and isn't appropriate and acceptable for everyone else?

 

[Liability]

So women can't be trusted to have control over their own bodies without government intervention?

Of course women can be trusted to have control over their own bodies. But that kind of begs the question. Who speaks for the pre-born babies? Since it appears that nobody speaks for them, maybe the Government has an obligation to step in, retardean.

Gays shouldn't have equal rights?

Where in ANYTHING I said, you dishonest asshole, did I contend that gays aren't entitled to equal rights? If you had the capacity for honesty (which you do not), you might have noted that my contention is that there MAY be cases -- which the OP falsely portrays as some outrageous governmental involvement in private lives -- which are actually instances where a proper reliance on the Constitution's provisions for a LIMITED GOVERNMENT justify such involvements.

So it works like this, you dishonest tool: IF the claim is made that the Federal Government has some valid authority to legislate on the issue of "gay rights," then the Government SHOULD be able to point to one of its enumerated powers to justify that claim.

So women are incubators? They don't have the right to decide what happens to their bodies?

Oh my. Retardean thinks he has it going on! Such brilliant rhetoric.

But, uhm. No. You don't retardean. In fact you are just a trite troll.

No matter how often you and your ilk try that ploy, the actual question keeps coming back to the surface, you dishonest hack.

We ALL have the right to decide what happens with our own bodies up to a point. But the "question" is not whether a woman has a right to choose what happens to her own body. The question is whether that right goes so far as to permit her to unilaterally elect to snuff out the life of ANOTHER person. And the question, really, is whether the government has the authority -- even the duty -- to step in to protect that other life.

If the government does have the authority (perhaps even the duty) to do so, such authority obviously and inescapably impacts on the woman's body and her right to make choices with regard to her own body. Yeah, and ...?

Is this the only instance where government authority/duty implicates the ability to affect the right of people to control their own lives and bodies? Why, no. It's not.

Quick retardean, try to work up a shred of honesty. I know it will cause you physical pain, but man up and do it anyway. Answer the following question: Can you be objective enough to tell us TWO other obvious examples of where the government's authority/duty directly impacts on a person's right to control his/her own life and body?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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'm against most forms of abortion, b/c murder is murder. Most excuses for it are vile, at best.

If an adult wants to kill himself, that's fine, it shouldn't be a medical procedure that I will have to pay for.

The Fed got involved in schools, we went from the top to the bottom 1/2. what's your excuse to want more of that?

the left claims that police are socialism. Hows the TSA working working out?

FDA; How the hell can a drug get passed that has a side effect of "death"? How many food recalls did we have this year?

CO2 is now a pollutant. That means you are polluting as you breath. How friggin brilliant is that?

I can continue, but you truly do believe that an all powerful central government is the answer and that any other option is wrong, no matter how much proof, not just evidence, but proof that we show you will change that.

 

[mdn2000]

Some things you don't need a link for. They are just common sense.

Conservatives need to stay out of our lives.

Wrong.

When YOU, of all people, say something, it is presumptively retarded and dishonest. Links are therefore absolutely required when it is YOU making such claims.

As for "common sense," you should not speak of matters so far above your limited abilities.

It is liberals who need to stop meddling.

So women can't be trusted to have control over their own bodies without government intervention?

Gays shouldn't have equal rights?

Gays have equal rights, more rights if you count hate crime laws.

 

[daveman]

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?

He's a liberal. He knows better than us. Just ask him.

I just pointed out some very obvious hypocritical stances by conservatives. Either you oppose those things in the OP or you favor government control over your private lives. This ain't rocket science, my friends.

And since you're not coming out in opposition to those things it can only mean you truly favor government control over your private lives, right or wrong?

I notice you haven't condemned the practice of licking yogurt of hobo toes. I can only assume that means you support it.

Dood. That's nasty. You'll get a disease.

 

[Conspiracist]

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 all of those laws but I do not oppose people having personal feelings on those issues pro or con. Most of those issues I would adamantly protest my kids taking part in but I believe in the freedom of choice in life.

 

[DaGoose]

He's a liberal. He knows better than us. Just ask him.

I just pointed out some very obvious hypocritical stances by conservatives. Either you oppose those things in the OP or you favor government control over your private lives. This ain't rocket science, my friends.

And since you're not coming out in opposition to those things it can only mean you truly favor government control over your private lives, right or wrong?

No, dumbass. What you pointed out are things that YOU think conservatives shouldn't stand for. That doesn't make them hypocritical. That just makes them opposite of you. And as hard as this is for any leftist I've ever met to believe, you do NOT represent the sum total of all received wisdom.

Again, Mensa Boy, unless one is proposing that the only choices available are big government or anarchy, then OBVIOUSLY one believes that the government has SOME proper jobs to perform, which means it does have SOME appropriate influence on private lives. Can you say, "Duhhh" for us?

There's an enormous difference, visible to anyone who's not currently inspecting his own colon at close range, between "small but appropriate government" and "intrusive nanny government". And once again, Colon Inspector, who the **** died and left you in charge of defining what is and isn't appropriate and acceptable for everyone else?

Ok....got YOU down for "more" government control over our private lives.

What you pointed out are things that YOU think conservatives shouldn't stand for. That doesn't make them hypocritical.

Ok. Then they should be upfront and say they WANT the government to enforce whatever THEY think is "morally correct" in people's lives.

And as hard as this is for any leftist I've ever met to believe, you do NOT represent the sum total of all received wisdom.

Damn!! And I studied all week for it!!

Again, Mensa Boy, unless one is proposing that the only choices available are big government or anarchy......

Why does it have to be anarchy? Where did THAT come from?

And once again, Colon Inspector, who the **** died and left you in charge of defining what is and isn't appropriate and acceptable for everyone else?

Well it sure wasn't my colon which is alive and well thank you. I'm sorry if you're offended by the OP but if you are it must mean that the truth hurts.