More from the "smaller government" party

[Glen]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/03/17586683-top-va-republican-urges-court-to-keep-anti-sodomy-law-on-the-books?lite

 

 

 

Small enough for it to fit in your bedroom.

[mtangelsfan]

Stupid, go get some of our money back so called republican.

[Lifetime]

Uh, he's a state AG, how is he supposed to get your money back? 

 

And how does the thread title relate to this? 

[Glen]

Uh, he's a state AG, how is he supposed to get your money back? 

 

And how does the thread title relate to this? 

 

 

 

The party that wants less government apparently wants more government in our personal lives. 

[Glen]

http://watchdog.org/78128/montana-gop-legislators-think-homosexuality-is-a-crime/

 

 

More small government in our bedrooms.  States rights, baby!

[Taylor]

So many Republicans are f'n morons.

[Jay]

This "doesn't affect my life" so therefore I "really don't care"

[Lifetime]

The party that wants less government apparently wants more government in our personal lives. 

uh no, this is a state attorney general not a particular party. not surprised you spin that way though.

[Broad Street]

So many Republicans are f'n morons.

 

So many Democrats are f'n morons too. Let's be fair.

[Glen]

uh no, this is a state attorney general not a particular party. not surprised you spin that way though.

 

 

I don't see any republicans calling out this republican on this.  And we're seeing similar crap in other states, from...republicans.  This IS a republican issue. 

[Glen]

So many Democrats are f'n morons too. Let's be fair.

 

 

 

You should start a thread about it. 

[Futch Winkleman]

Why are republicans so obsessed with anal sex?

[mtangelsfan]

You should start a thread about it. 

 

Only glen is allowed to use misdirection in this forum!!!!!!

[Lifetime]

I don't see any republicans calling out this republican on this.  And we're seeing similar crap in other states, from...republicans.  This IS a republican issue. 

Nice bit of logic there Glen. You haven't seen any Republicans speak out against it therefore it is a Republican issue. And one other state is attempting a similar type of issue. It's a lock, Republican issue. It's a fallacious argument. 

 

And I love that you equate this to bigger government. 

[Glen]

Nice bit of logic there Glen. You haven't seen any Republicans speak out against it therefore it is a Republican issue. And one other state is attempting a similar type of issue. It's a lock, Republican issue. It's a fallacious argument. 

 

And I love that you equate this to bigger government. 

 

 

 

Feel free to prove me wrong by providing some links of democrats proposing laws like this.  Anything even close to it. 

 

And yes, this is bigger government because it's more intrusive.  Getting further into our personal lives.  It isn't just about numbers, it's also about reach.  What else would you call trying to regulate our sex lives; small government? 

[mtangelsfan]

I'll bite.  How about gun legislation?  That is our private lives.  How about all the democratic tax raise proposals?  I think taking money out of people's pockets is pretty damn intrusive.  How about food laws that try to restrict what people can eat?  

 

Please, pretty much all laws invade some part of people's lives.  I don't agree with this proposal, but don't pretend you are on the better side of invasive lawmaking.

[Lifetime]

Ah so since we haven't heard of any dems currently pushing new laws, aaccording to you (or as you put it, bigger government) therefore this is a Republican issue. LOL. The fallacious argument just keeps going. Whether or not there is a dem out there doing this does nothing to prove you right or wrong. 

[Taylor]

So many Democrats are f'n morons too. Let's be fair.

 

Agreed. Their all idoits.

[Jason]

The woman running against him should run on a pro sodomy campaign

[HaloMagic]

I'll bite. How about gun legislation? That is our private lives. How about all the democratic tax raise proposals? I think taking money out of people's pockets is pretty damn intrusive. How about food laws that try to restrict what people can eat?

Please, pretty much all laws invade some part of people's lives. I don't agree with this proposal, but don't pretend you are on the better side of invasive lawmaking.

I'll bite, too. I don't recall reading a quote from Glen anywhere that Democrats were not invasive or that he was on the better side. It seems pretty clear to me that his title is pointing to the perceived hypocrisy created when a party claims to be the small government option because they want to stay out of you wallet but then turn around and try to force their way into your bedroom. I don't believe anyone is claiming the Democrats are the small government option. That would also be hypocritical.

[Glen]

Ah so since we haven't heard of any dems currently pushing new laws, aaccording to you (or as you put it, bigger government) therefore this is a Republican issue. LOL. The fallacious argument just keeps going. Whether or not there is a dem out there doing this does nothing to prove you right or wrong. 

 

 

Oh, absolutely it does.  Seriously, can you find one dem in recent history that has proposed this sort of personally invasive law?  As HM pointed out, I'm not referring to guns, which is is an entirely separate issue, nor am I saying the dems aren't for invasive government in other areas.  I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the "small government republicans" seeking to continually expand government further into the most private parts of our lives.  

 

Also, up until about 2010, the republicans haven't done much of anything to reduce the size of government.  Despite being the "small government party" for the last few decades, every time they've had the power to make some changes to support this, they haven't.  

[Lifetime]

Except you fallaciously connect a "smaller government" stance as including state issues when the truth is it's about the federal government. You use the attempts of a few at the state level to point to hypocrisy for a federal position. It's not so much that the hypocrisy doesn't exist to some extent but rather that your examples are non sequitur to your argument. 

[mtangelsfan]

I'll bite, too. I don't recall reading a quote from Glen anywhere that Democrats were not invasive or that he was on the better side. It seems pretty clear to me that his title is pointing to the perceived hypocrisy created when a party claims to be the small government option because they want to stay out of you wallet but then turn around and try to force their way into your bedroom. I don't believe anyone is claiming the Democrats are the small government option. That would also be hypocritical.

So cute to defend tin.  You guys need a room?  Just stay north of the mason dixon line if you do

[HaloMagic]

Good post.

[HaloMagic]

Except you fallaciously connect a "smaller government" stance as including state issues when the truth is it's about the federal government. You use the attempts of a few at the state level to point to hypocrisy for a federal position. It's not so much that the hypocrisy doesn't exist to some extent but rather that your examples are non sequitur to your argument.

You can't be serious. Are you implying there aren't Republican candidates running on a small government platform at the state level? The level of the government is not specified by the term "small government". Some use it to refer to a smaller federal government. Some use it to refer to smaller government entities in general, including state and local governments. To say the term only refers to their federal position is pure hogwash.