More from the "smaller government" party

[Lou]

So a state AG is now considered " the party" ?

[HaloMagic]

No. But that can be said for any political figure. Democrats have been characterized as being anti-gun in this thread when that is just a position held by certain members. It's not an official party position. Many members couldn't be convinced to support gun restriction legislation. It's just easier to group people I guess.

[Lou]

what does anti-gun mean?

[Lifetime]

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.

You can't be serious. In general, the party's "smaller government"  stance is about federal not state. Using a state AG stance on a particular state law does nothing to indicate hypocrisy in the party. Again, it's not that hypocrisy doesn't exist onthis at some level. The examples just don't fit the argument. 

[HaloMagic]

In general I hear federal candidates talk about reducing federal government size and state candidates talk about reducing state government size. Since neither one has the power to reduce the other this makes perfect sense. The position isn't a federal one.

[Lifetime]

Reduction of government size from the Republican Party has been mostly regarding federal. There are some efforts to reduce regulation that affects business in order to increase jobs and boost the economies at the state level. But those efforts at reducing state government are specifically focused on those regulatory issues.

 

Regardless, the examples given here do not fit the OP's premise.

[HaloMagic]

There are some efforts to reduce regulation that affects business in order to increase jobs and boost the economies at the state level. But those efforts at reducing state government are specifically focused on those regulatory issues.

Exactly my point. Despite candidates in state elections calling for smaller government their "efforts at reducing state government are specifically focused on those regulatory issues" that pertain to fiscal matters. They then turn around and attempt to force their way into your bedroom and drop trou and dookie hard all over your privacy. Kind of hypocritical when you promote yourself as being for smaller government. They should run on a "we're going request less of your money comes to us but we are also going to tell you what you can and can't do because we believe we are the ultimate moral authority and anyone that disagrees with us shouldn't have free will" platform. Not as catchy but way more accurate.

[mtangelsfan]

Really its what rights people care more about.  Again, intrusiveness is intrusiveness.  Personally I think the government putting its hand in my pocket is the most intrusive thing there is.  

 

I know for a fact that I can do more good with that money than the government can.  

[Lifetime]

Their platform explains exactly what they mean by smaller government. Claiming that these laws are hypocritical to those ideals is disingenuous and fallacious. Morality laws like this, which I don't agree with by the way, do not amount to bigger government. That's complete horseshit. Again, those examples are non sequitur to the platform for smaller better designed more efficient government. 

[Glen]

Reduction of government size from the Republican Party has been mostly regarding federal. There are some efforts to reduce regulation that affects business in order to increase jobs and boost the economies at the state level. But those efforts at reducing state government are specifically focused on those regulatory issues.

 

Regardless, the examples given here do not fit the OP's premise.

 

 

If I'd titled it "More from the 'less government in our lives' party" it perhaps might have been more accurate.  I'll concede that much.  Six of one, a half-dozen of another.  As for the state/federal distinction - state level politicians are part of the major parties.  They get invited to the conventions and they're like the minor leagues for Senators.  

[Lifetime]

 gettingIf I'd titled it "More from the 'less government in our lives' party" it perhaps might have been more accurate.  I'll concede that much.  Six of one, a half-dozen of another.  As for the state/federal distinction - state level politicians are part of the major parties.  They get invited to the conventions and they're like the minor leagues for Senators.  

It would have been more accurate to your argument but it still would have been disingenuous to the parties position. These kind of laws have nothing to do with the smaller government position. 

 

So getting an invite to conventions amounts to everything you do in your state being a party issue and a party belief? That's an interesting leap Glen. 

[HaloMagic]

Really its what rights people care more about. Again, intrusiveness is intrusiveness.

Agreed. The two main parties are just as extreme as each other but on different topics. Socially the Republicans are just as big government as the Democrats are fiscally. And money-wise the Republicans try to protect people's rights as much as Democrats do with social issues.

[HaloMagic]

Their platform explains exactly what they mean by smaller government. Claiming that these laws are hypocritical to those ideals is disingenuous and fallacious. Morality laws like this, which I don't agree with by the way, do not amount to bigger government. That's complete horseshit. Again, those examples are non sequitur to the platform for smaller better designed more efficient government.

Yeah, more laws doesn't mean bigger government. Unless you think a more invasive and restricting government is bigger than one that isn't. Then it is bigger government.

The universal definition of smaller government isn't less revenue from it's citizens, despite your attempt to make it seem like it is.

[Lifetime]

The definition of smaller government in the Republican platform is about less money from its citizens a smaller government machine, a more efficient government. It is about less government regulation on business and thwarting economic growth. Despite your attempts to make it seem like it's something else. 

 

LOL at the "universal definition" 

[HaloMagic]

Sweet. So even though the Republicans stand for "smaller government" that doesn't mean they actually stand for smaller government.

Agreed.

[Lifetime]

Sweet you've gone into prick mode again. I guess we're done then. 

[HaloMagic]

I thought I was just agreeing with what you said. Sorry.

[Glen]

The definition of smaller government in the Republican platform is about less money from its citizens a smaller government machine, a more efficient government. It is about less government regulation on business and thwarting economic growth. Despite your attempts to make it seem like it's something else. 

 

LOL at the "universal definition" 

 

 

That's your definition, perhaps.  Isn't it open to interpretation?  I'd certainly consider "smaller government" to mean less government intrusion in our lives.

[Lifetime]

No that's the Republican Party's definition and it's pretty clearly stated. 

[HaloMagic]

Where is it stated?

[Futch Winkleman]

Why are republicans so obsessed with anal sex?

 

???

[HaloMagic]

That's your definition, perhaps. Isn't it open to interpretation? I'd certainly consider "smaller government" to mean less government intrusion in our lives.

I don't know why you aren't getting this Glen. Republicans stand for "smaller government", not smaller government.