Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is it that many Republicans talk about ''small government'' when the very DEFINITION of social conservatism is using big government to stick your nose in strangers' personal lives?
Why is it that many Republicans talk about ''small government'' when the very DEFINITION of social conservatism is using big government to stick your nose in strangers' personal lives?
I'm for fiscal conservatism with limited safety nets except for the massively disabled and elderly.
So do I get stick my nose a little everywhere and a lot with suspected terrorist without being a hypocrite?
Why is it that many Republicans talk about ''small government'' when the very DEFINITION of social conservatism is using big government to stick your nose in strangers' personal lives?
OH, and the reason we want small government is that a large one needs (if you make a penny) most of your money out of your family's pockets to feed itself Iike the ever hungry cancer cell it is.
Large government is bloated malignant government that enevibly has to eat and then take everything down around it.
Neither party is for small government. Witness it's explosive growth under the two party system.
^This.
The two party system has evolved into a system of the governing class vs. the governed. The primary motivation of those in the governing class is to first preserve and second, wherever possible, to grow their power.
personally i am for smaller government, i think the government needs to be cut back in many areas. but i don think that some things do need to be restricted, like abortion for instance, since this is what this thread is really about. i dont care what people do in their bedrooms, and with whom, however what they do OUTSIDE the bedroom is the problem. abortion for birth control is, imo wrong.
personally i am for smaller government, i think the government needs to be cut back in many areas. but i don think that some things do need to be restricted, like abortion for instance, since this is what this thread is really about. i dont care what people do in their bedrooms, and with whom, however what they do OUTSIDE the bedroom is the problem. abortion for birth control is, imo wrong.
On that note: Religious people back with the original debate were so zealous in all or nothing attitude regarding the original abortion debate that they lost 100%. Had they originally gone for no abortion except for with a police report regarding rape, incest or the provable high risk of the lost life of the mother they would have won and millions of more especially babies of color would be alive today.
They were thick headed and could of had 99.5% of what they wanted.
Why is it that many Republicans talk about ''small government'' when the very DEFINITION of social conservatism is using big government to stick your nose in strangers' personal lives?
This makes no sense. A city or small village could enforce social conservative government. As a conservative I want private people to make their own choices not the government about who they have to live with, go to school and work with. The only thing I want the federal government to do is to secure the borders against immigration invasion and set, enforce international trade policy. I'm not even against social safety nets. I'm not even against unions per se. I'm trying to conserve 1940, 1955 or even 1963 America, which had social security and unions. How big was the government then versus now?
Why is it that many Republicans talk about ''small government'' when the very DEFINITION of social conservatism is using big government to stick your nose in strangers' personal lives?
In what way? By getting government funding out of the abortion business? By getting the government out of redefining traditional institutions or even better, getting government out of being the sole determiner of who can marry whom?
How does either of those issues GROW the government?
On that note: Religious people back with the original debate were so zealous in all or nothing attitude regarding the original abortion debate that they lost 100%. Had they originally gone for no abortion except for with a police report regarding rape, incest or the provable high risk of the lost life of the mother they would have won and millions of more especially babies of color would be alive today.
They were thick headed and could of had 99.5% of what they wanted.
that might have been the case, early, but as you know there are a lot of people that work around the rules, so how many of those "saved" fetuses, would have been aborted anyway because the girl in question went doctor shopping to find one that would say that her health was in danger if there was no abortion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
