Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

More from the "smaller government" party


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...