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.)
