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.
I don't really understand why the original top relating to the news article is necessarily tied to limited government. The fact that it relates to budget cuts seems entirely incidental to me. The real issue is not whether budget cuts "caused" some travesty.... because in some peoples minds there was no travesty at all.
This is very clearly an issue of suicide and how public policy chooses to treat it. Should it take the noseybody approach, or does it let people die in peace. That issue pretty much transcends party line politics and comes down to who is a nosy authoritative bastard that can't even let people F-ing die in peace. This is an issue of who here will, and who won't, stick their nose into other peoples suicides (as an aside, I love [/sarcasm] how many times over the last few decades cops have busted into peoples houses to save them from suicide and then ended up killing them).
Being an authoritative prick who won't even let a person die in peace is an attribute which tends to transcend party politics, since there are authoritative pricks in every political party. Tea Party really has nothing to do with it.... The fact that the Tea Party was even mentioned could be viewed as somewhat telling. It shows that the person likely has authoritarian tendencies for the simple reason that they think the situation warranted interference to begin with. The budget issue is really just a little sideplot to it all. It's really about the desire to stick ones nose in to suicide attempts.
My conclusion, they did the right thing.... partly for the wrong reasons. Had there not been budget cuts, what would be the result of that? They would have had the budget to go out and engage in authoritarian services? That's what we want? Well, that's certainly what the authoritarians sure want... that we know.
I don't really understand why the original top relating to the news article is necessarily tied to limited government. The fact that it relates to budget cuts seems entirely incidental to me. The real issue is not whether budget cuts "caused" some travesty.... because in some peoples minds there was no travesty at all.
This is very clearly an issue of suicide and how public policy chooses to treat it. Should it take the noseybody approach, or does it let people die in peace. That issue pretty much transcends party line politics and comes down to who is a nosy authoritative bastard that can't even let people F-ing die in peace. This is an issue of who here will, and who won't, stick their nose into other peoples suicides (as an aside, I love [/sarcasm] how many times over the last few decades cops have busted into peoples houses to save them from suicide and then ended up killing them).
Being an authoritative prick who won't even let a person die in peace is an attribute which tends to transcend party politics, since there are authoritative pricks in every political party. Tea Party really has nothing to do with it.... The fact that the Tea Party was even mentioned could be viewed as somewhat telling. It shows that the person likely has authoritarian tendencies for the simple reason that they think the situation warranted interference to begin with. The budget issue is really just a little sideplot to it all. It's really about the desire to stick ones nose in to suicide attempts.
My conclusion, they did the right thing.... partly for the wrong reasons. Had there not been budget cuts, what would be the result of that? They would have had the budget to go out and engage in authoritarian services? That's what we want? Well, that's certainly what the authoritarians sure want... that we know.
This is not about govt or authoritarianism. This is about a human hurting who even took the time to look at the beach - most likely to see if anyone gave a durn enough about him to help. In that situation, no wonder he drowned himself as no one did care enough to help.
this happening in san fran is irrelevant to my point.
the tea party wants everything scaled back right?
that means local governments, cops, firefighters etc.
a similar argument i couldve brought up was those firefighters who stood in front of a house somewhere and let it burn to the ground due to budget cuts.
the tea party doesnt want government involved but doesnt realize the services local governments provide them. when those services disappear, they will whine and want them back.
the tea party wants everything scaled back right?
that means local governments, cops, firefighters etc.
Actually no. Most of the the Tea Party members I know aren't for any such thing. What they want is to do is scale back the Federal government and all it's reckless spending which would give local governement a greater role .
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.
