"Smaller government" advocates

[regent]

The only thing that has been reduced is the artificial power given by government to workers. Workers are as free or more than ever to unite and negotiate on actual market power

Actually, Republican laws like right to work ( right to get paid less) erode the power of workers to negotiate. Throw in attacks on collective bargaining and you have workers right where the wealthy need them....hungry and desperate

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

For most of my life I've never worked for any unions and never experienced any of the problems you listed.

Your day doesn't start with your attitude telling your employer that you hate them, does it?

LOL, you can't do that without a union. I have union story after union story to tell but don't have enough room to tell them all. But what the hell, maybe just one:

When I was a teen back in the 70's I was in a rock band. The other guitarist was older than me and worked at the steel mills. I knew he worked on the trains, but never knew what he did.

One day he stopped over while I was on summer vacation and asked if I wanted to take a ride with him to work so he could pickup his paycheck. I've never been inside the mills before, so I tagged along. On the way there, I finally asked what he did exactly.

He told me that he was a union fireman. Confused, I asked what a fireman did? He said his job was to shovel coal into the engine so that it could run. Confused again, I asked "They don't use coal fired engines anymore, do they?" To that he replied, "No they don't, but the union says you have to have a fireman on every train."

They used to pay this guy to ride around on trains all day and do virtually nothing. When the plant closed down, they were screaming that it was big greedy corporations that were responsible.

Yeah and the government requiring copilots on passenger airplanes that does nothing as did the firemen on the trains is the same thing, except the copilots get paid more than the firemen.

 

[francoHFW]

Actually, Republican laws like right to work ( right to get paid less) erode the power of workers to negotiate. Throw in attacks on collective bargaining and you have workers right where the wealthy need them....hungry and desperate

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

For most of my life I've never worked for any unions and never experienced any of the problems you listed.

Your day doesn't start with your attitude telling your employer that you hate them, does it?

LOL, you can't do that without a union. I have union story after union story to tell but don't have enough room to tell them all. But what the hell, maybe just one:

When I was a teen back in the 70's I was in a rock band. The other guitarist was older than me and worked at the steel mills. I knew he worked on the trains, but never knew what he did.

One day he stopped over while I was on summer vacation and asked if I wanted to take a ride with him to work so he could pickup his paycheck. I've never been inside the mills before, so I tagged along. On the way there, I finally asked what he did exactly.

He told me that he was a union fireman. Confused, I asked what a fireman did? He said his job was to shovel coal into the engine so that it could run. Confused again, I asked "They don't use coal fired engines anymore, do they?" To that he replied, "No they don't, but the union says you have to have a fireman on every train."

They used to pay this guy to ride around on trains all day and do virtually nothing. When the plant closed down, they were screaming that it was big greedy corporations that were responsible.

Yeah and the government requiring copilots on passenger airplanes that does nothing as did the firemen on the trains is the same thing, except the copilots get paid more than the firemen.

So what if the pilot dies, like laszt week. Say what you want dupes, but workers do as well as the unions do historically.

 

[bripat9643]

your 30 year wage stagnation is a result of 30 years of you sucking at your job and not giving a shit about your employer

You funny

Straight up, Comrade big guy. If you were a good employee, you would realize how much power people have over their own fates. That you don't know that and think employees are victims of their employers says what kind of employee you are

You funny..

I like how you call me "Comrade" like you are a 1950s Red scare monger

Do you come up with this stuff yourself or does mommy help you?

Anyone that supports civilization and the taxes that are needed to run one is a communist to this idiot.

Right, we're anarchists. Fucking moron

I'm an anarchist, so I can say with authority that you are no anarchist. You foolishly still believe that government can be limited.

 

[FA_Q2]

the Patriot Act allowed government to listen in on your phone call to the pizza place, but that is wrong.

As I recall The patriot Act allowed the govt to create a data base of billions of connected telephone numbers so that if you were ever implicated as a terrorist the FBI could then learn your associates and then listen in on your calls after securing permission from a FISA court. This is 1000% minor compared to what Census Bureau, IRS, credit card companies, health insurance companies, schools, etc know about you.

Actually all they did was listen in on phone calls of interest, but never knew who they were listening to.

They had computers comb through thousands of messages per minute. It worked like a search engine. It would only bring up transmissions that had key words in it; words terrorist organizations would use. Nobody has ever been prosecuted using the Patriot Act as far as I know of.

And that matters because?

Isnt the massive amount of power blatantly evident here not to mention that massive expansion of government involved is such?

If it's not affecting anybody, where is this power at?

The subject here is smaller government meaning smaller federal government. I don't know about you, but to me, big government is anything not listed in the US Constitution. The protection of this country is in the Constitution--Obama Care isn't.

The ability for the government to record and watch your every movement is not in the constitution.

The power is in the asinine amount of information that the government is keeping on virtually everyone. Have you ever seen "Enemy of the State." It is not a matter of it directly effecting you - it can do that without anyone ever even knowing. You think that something like the IRS scandal cannot happen with the surveillance state that we are setting up? It can and it will.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You think that something like the IRS scandal cannot happen with the surveillance state that we are setting up? It can and it will.

The IRS scandal did happen and we still need to protect ourselves from ISIS who with bio weapons can kill millions of us.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the Patriot Act allowed government to listen in on your phone call to the pizza place, but that is wrong.

As I recall The patriot Act allowed the govt to create a data base of billions of connected telephone numbers so that if you were ever implicated as a terrorist the FBI could then learn your associates and then listen in on your calls after securing permission from a FISA court. This is 1000% minor compared to what Census Bureau, IRS, credit card companies, health insurance companies, schools, etc know about you.

Actually all they did was listen in on phone calls of interest, but never knew who they were listening to.

They had computers comb through thousands of messages per minute. It worked like a search engine. It would only bring up transmissions that had key words in it; words terrorist organizations would use. Nobody has ever been prosecuted using the Patriot Act as far as I know of.

And that matters because?

Isnt the massive amount of power blatantly evident here not to mention that massive expansion of government involved is such?

If it's not affecting anybody, where is this power at?

The subject here is smaller government meaning smaller federal government. I don't know about you, but to me, big government is anything not listed in the US Constitution. The protection of this country is in the Constitution--Obama Care isn't.

The ability for the government to record and watch your every movement is not in the constitution.

The power is in the asinine amount of information that the government is keeping on virtually everyone. Have you ever seen "Enemy of the State." It is not a matter of it directly effecting you - it can do that without anyone ever even knowing. You think that something like the IRS scandal cannot happen with the surveillance state that we are setting up? It can and it will.

When there is evident damage such as the IRS case, then yes, we need to do something. But the fact is in order for one-half of our country to be intensely spied on, we would need the other half to be working for the government. There is no possible way for the government to read or listen to every transaction that takes place everyday in this country. It's impossible.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, Republican laws like right to work ( right to get paid less) erode the power of workers to negotiate. Throw in attacks on collective bargaining and you have workers right where the wealthy need them....hungry and desperate

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

For most of my life I've never worked for any unions and never experienced any of the problems you listed.

Your day doesn't start with your attitude telling your employer that you hate them, does it?

LOL, you can't do that without a union. I have union story after union story to tell but don't have enough room to tell them all. But what the hell, maybe just one:

When I was a teen back in the 70's I was in a rock band. The other guitarist was older than me and worked at the steel mills. I knew he worked on the trains, but never knew what he did.

One day he stopped over while I was on summer vacation and asked if I wanted to take a ride with him to work so he could pickup his paycheck. I've never been inside the mills before, so I tagged along. On the way there, I finally asked what he did exactly.

He told me that he was a union fireman. Confused, I asked what a fireman did? He said his job was to shovel coal into the engine so that it could run. Confused again, I asked "They don't use coal fired engines anymore, do they?" To that he replied, "No they don't, but the union says you have to have a fireman on every train."

They used to pay this guy to ride around on trains all day and do virtually nothing. When the plant closed down, they were screaming that it was big greedy corporations that were responsible.

Yeah and the government requiring copilots on passenger airplanes that does nothing as did the firemen on the trains is the same thing, except the copilots get paid more than the firemen.

Well they don't have firemen now (and haven't had in years) and they seem to be getting along just fine.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's not the job of federal government to train you for a job.

You cradle-to-gravers will be the end of this country yet.

Shortsighted idiocy. "SUPPORT". Helluva lot smarter than 3 million good tech jobs going begging with 5% UE etc.

If you want a tech job, go out and get one, just don't expect me to pay for it.

Then you pay for their UE and welfare DUH. Brilliant.

WTF is an UE? And let's cut welfare for all individuals mentally and physically capable of working.

Unemployment. No. Let's make jobs worth having.

Making a higher wage is an investment--not an entitlement like you want it to be. You want to invest in yourself? That's the best investment you can make. Your return is a better paying job than the average worker and much more secure employment future. You should have to pay for it if that's what you want.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I can agree largely except on banning same-sex marriage. Whatever you think of that issue, allowing it expands government, from the local level where more people have to get the licenses, to the expanded government benefits to the newly"married" couples.

But you talk about same sex marriage and benefits. But straight couples had that. I'd be happy to get rid of all benefits towards marriage for both straight and gay, no problem. But as there are benefits for straight, there HAS TO BE benefits for gay.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I can agree largely except on banning same-sex marriage. Whatever you think of that issue, allowing it expands government, from the local level where more people have to get the licenses, to the expanded government benefits to the newly"married" couples.

But you talk about same sex marriage and benefits. But straight couples had that. I'd be happy to get rid of all benefits towards marriage for both straight and gay, no problem. But as there are benefits for straight, there HAS TO BE benefits for gay.

I couldn't agree more. Marriage should be a strictly religious rite and nothing more. Government should only respect the wife taking the husband last name and that's it. That would have ended the problem long before it got to the Supreme Court.

 

[paulitician]

Thanks a lot 'Small Government' Republicans. You expanded the size and scope of Government beyond anyone's worst expectations. Homeland Security, Patriot Act, NDAA, and massive NSA spying. Thanks again guys.

What were the Republicans supposed to do? After 911, the first complaint by the left was how our Republican government left us unprotected; how they used OUR cell phones; how they used OUR e-mail for communications; how some of these jokers were known to be in terrorist organizations.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You guys have conributed heavily to the rapid massive expansion of the size of our Government. You're just as bad, if not worse than Communists/Progressives.

So we have terrorists coming over our border, getting on airplanes, killing thousands of Americans, and your libertarian position is to do nothing? Maybe that's why we'll never see a Libertarian President in our lifetime.

There is a piece I would like you to read, it's called the US Constitution. The founders charged our leaders with the protection of our country. It's their duty to protect us from enemies within or outside of our borders.

Maybe our founders were big government people too.......at least by your standards.

Maybe your Government should stop starting wars all over the world? That would be a good start to really securing our country. And i've always supported securing our border. I supported it when it wasn't fashionable for you Johnny-Come-Latelys to. You 'Small Government Republicans' opposed it for years. You couldn't get enough of your Slave Labor.

So, you really wanna secure our country? End the Permanant War and secure our border. We don't need Big Brother taking our rights away in the name of 'Security.' Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at what our Government is doing.

No, they would actually applaud them--at least when it comes to securing the country.

What they would object to is our federal government being in every nook and cranny of our life; from forced healthcare to telling us what we should eat or weigh; From robbing the rich and supporting the lazy.

And how is it my rights were never violated and yours were? Can you tell me what rights you were denied of or what rights of yours were violated?

Boy are you Big Government Authoritarians way off. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at what you've done to the country. You can't give up Liberty for Security. You'll end up with neither.

 

[paulitician]

. You guys are for anything but 'Smaller Government.'

100% stupid liberal has learned 100 times that small govt does not mean small defense!!

There would be no point in having an idyllic country with a small govt that was poorly defended.
Simple but a liberal will lack the IQ to understand.

You and your boy Geoge W. Bush expanded the size and scope of Government more that any other President in history, other than FDR. Government is everywhere now. You're not for 'Small/Less' Government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What were the Republicans supposed to do? After 911, the first complaint by the left was how our Republican government left us unprotected; how they used OUR cell phones; how they used OUR e-mail for communications; how some of these jokers were known to be in terrorist organizations.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You guys have conributed heavily to the rapid massive expansion of the size of our Government. You're just as bad, if not worse than Communists/Progressives.

So we have terrorists coming over our border, getting on airplanes, killing thousands of Americans, and your libertarian position is to do nothing? Maybe that's why we'll never see a Libertarian President in our lifetime.

There is a piece I would like you to read, it's called the US Constitution. The founders charged our leaders with the protection of our country. It's their duty to protect us from enemies within or outside of our borders.

Maybe our founders were big government people too.......at least by your standards.

Maybe your Government should stop starting wars all over the world? That would be a good start to really securing our country. And i've always supported securing our border. I supported it when it wasn't fashionable for you Johnny-Come-Latelys to. You 'Small Government Republicans' opposed it for years. You couldn't get enough of your Slave Labor.

So, you really wanna secure our country? End the Permanant War and secure our border. We don't need Big Brother taking our rights away in the name of 'Security.' Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at what our Government is doing.

No, they would actually applaud them--at least when it comes to securing the country.

What they would object to is our federal government being in every nook and cranny of our life; from forced healthcare to telling us what we should eat or weigh; From robbing the rich and supporting the lazy.

And how is it my rights were never violated and yours were? Can you tell me what rights you were denied of or what rights of yours were violated?

Boy are you Big Government Authoritarians way off. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at what you've done to the country. You can't give up Liberty for Security. You'll end up with neither.

I gave up neither. How about you?

 

[dcraelin]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I can agree largely except on banning same-sex marriage. Whatever you think of that issue, allowing it expands government, from the local level where more people have to get the licenses, to the expanded government benefits to the newly"married" couples.

But you talk about same sex marriage and benefits. But straight couples had that. I'd be happy to get rid of all benefits towards marriage for both straight and gay, no problem. But as there are benefits for straight, there HAS TO BE benefits for gay.

NO there doesn't HAVE to be, But I'm not going to argue that point,....the point is that government does have to spend more than it did as a result of the ruling.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I can agree largely except on banning same-sex marriage. Whatever you think of that issue, allowing it expands government, from the local level where more people have to get the licenses, to the expanded government benefits to the newly"married" couples.

But you talk about same sex marriage and benefits. But straight couples had that. I'd be happy to get rid of all benefits towards marriage for both straight and gay, no problem. But as there are benefits for straight, there HAS TO BE benefits for gay.

NO there doesn't HAVE to be, But I'm not going to argue that point,....the point is that government does have to spend more than it did as a result of the ruling.

So what? Govt spends more, but it spends it FAIRLY. Now, gay people pay their taxes and can get the same tax breaks as other people. Fair.

 

[dcraelin]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I can agree largely except on banning same-sex marriage. Whatever you think of that issue, allowing it expands government, from the local level where more people have to get the licenses, to the expanded government benefits to the newly"married" couples.

But you talk about same sex marriage and benefits. But straight couples had that. I'd be happy to get rid of all benefits towards marriage for both straight and gay, no problem. But as there are benefits for straight, there HAS TO BE benefits for gay.

NO there doesn't HAVE to be, But I'm not going to argue that point,....the point is that government does have to spend more than it did as a result of the ruling.

So what? Govt spends more, but it spends it FAIRLY. Now, gay people pay their taxes and can get the same tax breaks as other people. Fair.

It counters the premiss of the opening post (or first post I responded to)

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I can agree largely except on banning same-sex marriage. Whatever you think of that issue, allowing it expands government, from the local level where more people have to get the licenses, to the expanded government benefits to the newly"married" couples.

But you talk about same sex marriage and benefits. But straight couples had that. I'd be happy to get rid of all benefits towards marriage for both straight and gay, no problem. But as there are benefits for straight, there HAS TO BE benefits for gay.

NO there doesn't HAVE to be, But I'm not going to argue that point,....the point is that government does have to spend more than it did as a result of the ruling.

So what? Govt spends more, but it spends it FAIRLY. Now, gay people pay their taxes and can get the same tax breaks as other people. Fair.

It counters the premiss of the opening post (or first post I responded to)

Well the premise of the OP was that people who support smaller govt, in the main, don't actually follow this up by supporting other things which would show they're actually in favor of smaller govt.

 

[kaz]

You funny

Straight up, Comrade big guy. If you were a good employee, you would realize how much power people have over their own fates. That you don't know that and think employees are victims of their employers says what kind of employee you are

You funny..

I like how you call me "Comrade" like you are a 1950s Red scare monger

Do you come up with this stuff yourself or does mommy help you?

Anyone that supports civilization and the taxes that are needed to run one is a communist to this idiot.

Right, we're anarchists. Fucking moron

I'm an anarchist, so I can say with authority that you are no anarchist. You foolishly still believe that government can be limited.

Fair enough, it can't.But you foolishly believe it can not exist. LOL

Either way the moron liberals will be minions to Maos and Obamas and crush us with their armies. So if that's the standard, we should just both give it up now

 

[kaz]

You guys have conributed heavily to the rapid massive expansion of the size of our Government. You're just as bad, if not worse than Communists/Progressives.

So we have terrorists coming over our border, getting on airplanes, killing thousands of Americans, and your libertarian position is to do nothing? Maybe that's why we'll never see a Libertarian President in our lifetime.

There is a piece I would like you to read, it's called the US Constitution. The founders charged our leaders with the protection of our country. It's their duty to protect us from enemies within or outside of our borders.

Maybe our founders were big government people too.......at least by your standards.

Maybe your Government should stop starting wars all over the world? That would be a good start to really securing our country. And i've always supported securing our border. I supported it when it wasn't fashionable for you Johnny-Come-Latelys to. You 'Small Government Republicans' opposed it for years. You couldn't get enough of your Slave Labor.

So, you really wanna secure our country? End the Permanant War and secure our border. We don't need Big Brother taking our rights away in the name of 'Security.' Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at what our Government is doing.

No, they would actually applaud them--at least when it comes to securing the country.

What they would object to is our federal government being in every nook and cranny of our life; from forced healthcare to telling us what we should eat or weigh; From robbing the rich and supporting the lazy.

And how is it my rights were never violated and yours were? Can you tell me what rights you were denied of or what rights of yours were violated?

Boy are you Big Government Authoritarians way off. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at what you've done to the country. You can't give up Liberty for Security. You'll end up with neither.

I gave up neither. How about you?

Polly is a big government libertarian, you know

 

[frigidweirdo]

Straight up, Comrade big guy. If you were a good employee, you would realize how much power people have over their own fates. That you don't know that and think employees are victims of their employers says what kind of employee you are

You funny..

I like how you call me "Comrade" like you are a 1950s Red scare monger

Do you come up with this stuff yourself or does mommy help you?

Anyone that supports civilization and the taxes that are needed to run one is a communist to this idiot.

Right, we're anarchists. Fucking moron

I'm an anarchist, so I can say with authority that you are no anarchist. You foolishly still believe that government can be limited.

Fair enough, it can't.But you foolishly believe it can not exist. LOL

Either way the moron liberals will be minions to Maos and Obamas and crush us with their armies. So if that's the standard, we should just both give it up now

Aren't you a minion to Obama?