"Smaller government" advocates

[FA_Q2]

The left has done just as much to ensure the government is all over you as the right has.

absurd and stupid!!
Republicans voted 97 times against Obamacare, most sign the Pledge, have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments all of which were killed by the left, and are responsible for debt ceiling debates, shutdowns, etc. while Sanders and Clinton for example are openly for bigger and bigger govt and brag about it!!

There is no comparison!!

Then you slept over the entire 8 years of Bush (not to mention that the republicans had the legislative branch for 6 of those as well).

Such is the view of the blind partisan.

 

[Londoner]

The left has done just as much to ensure the government is all over you as the right has.

absurd and stupid!!
Republicans voted 97 times against Obamacare, most sign the Pledge, have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments all of which were killed by the left, and are responsible for debt ceiling debates, shutdowns, etc. while Sanders and Clinton for example are openly for bigger and bigger govt and brag about it!!

There is no comparison!!

Then you slept over the entire 8 years of Bush (not to mention that the republicans had the legislative branch for 6 of those as well).

Such is the view of the blind partisan.

Exactly. Reagan tripled Carter's debt and doubled the number of federal employees. Never before has there been such a large gap between a president's rhetoric and his action. Reagan fucking increased the debt ceiling over 10 times and the left the nation with long term structural deficits.

Bush had the luxury of a republican House/Senate for the majority of his 8 years, and they raised the debt ceiling 6 times. FOX News didn't make a peep. Bush doubled Clinton's debt and made the largest increase to Medicare spending in a generation, giving birth to the term Big Government Conservatism.

But again, low information Republicans didn't know about any of this stuff because they are strategically conditioned to mistrust non-Republican news sources.

Republicans are great at curbing spending and limiting government power when a Democrat is in the White House. Unfortunately, when they hold the presidency, they spend more than the Left, and their voters become cheerleaders of big government.

The Reagan Revolution started with a promise of both sound fiscal management & small government, but it ended with a Soviet style surveillance bureaucracy and the greatest financial meltdown in our lifetime.

 

[Dana7360]

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?

What they mean by smaller government is that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want regulation on business.

They love big government as long as it's big conservative government.

 

[dblack]

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?

What they mean by smaller government is that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want regulation on business.

They love big government as long as it's big conservative government.

They ....

 

[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?

What they mean by smaller government is that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want regulation on business.

They love big government as long as it's big conservative government.

Some do. They are referred to as the Establishment Republicans, and we are trying to get rid of them as well.

What is big government? Big government is spending money on anything outside of what is listed in the US Constitution. And no......... general welfare does not mean health insurance, food stamps or HUD homes in the suburbs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The left has done just as much to ensure the government is all over you as the right has.

absurd and stupid!!
Republicans voted 97 times against Obamacare, most sign the Pledge, have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments all of which were killed by the left, and are responsible for debt ceiling debates, shutdowns, etc. while Sanders and Clinton for example are openly for bigger and bigger govt and brag about it!!

There is no comparison!!

Then you slept over the entire 8 years of Bush (not to mention that the republicans had the legislative branch for 6 of those as well).

Such is the view of the blind partisan.

Exactly. Reagan tripled Carter's debt and doubled the number of federal employees. Never before has there been such a large gap between a president's rhetoric and his action. Reagan fucking increased the debt ceiling over 10 times and the left the nation with long term structural deficits.

Bush had the luxury of a republican House/Senate for the majority of his 8 years, and they raised the debt ceiling 6 times. FOX News didn't make a peep. Bush doubled Clinton's debt and made the largest increase to Medicare spending in a generation, giving birth to the term Big Government Conservatism.

But again, low information Republicans didn't know about any of this stuff because they are strategically conditioned to mistrust non-Republican news sources.

Republicans are great at curbing spending and limiting government power when a Democrat is in the White House. Unfortunately, when they hold the presidency, they spend more than the Left, and their voters become cheerleaders of big government.

The Reagan Revolution started with a promise of both sound fiscal management & small government, but it ended with a Soviet style surveillance bureaucracy and the greatest financial meltdown in our lifetime.

If you spent some money to get your television repaired so it's not stuck on CNN all day long, you might have realized that yes, Republicans complained plenty about Bush, his spending, and in particular, Medicare expansion and No Child Left Behind just to name a few.

You might have also learned that in our system of government, it's the Congress that spends the money--not the President. That being said, Reagan presided with a Democrat led Congress both of his terms; the same Democrat led Congress that raised the debt ceiling so many times. When the Republicans took over leadership of Congress during the Clinton years, we finally paid off our debt, had a projected surplus, and even balanced the budget.

The debt ceiling is increased to pay off debts from previous spending in the past. As an example, Commie Care is going to cost us a trillion dollars over ten years. Of course, it's going to be much, much more than that, but the point is that we didn't cough up that money the day it was passed. We have to pay it off within those ten years. That's how it works.

 

[rightwinger]

100% stupid!! National defense is in Constitution. Isis could kill millions of us so we obviously have to defend ourselves any way possible!! Disrupting their plots through Patriot Act functions is better than nuking them.

The Constitution stipulates the rules the executive must follow when acting. This means Reagan can' t sell weapons to Iran (behind the backs of the American People & Congress). And it means Bush can't illegally tap the phones of American citizens (which is why the deeply conservative Ashcroft pulled the plug on Bush).

Partisans protect dear leader, even when he violates the Constitution. Defenders of the Constitution hold both parties accountable. They defend the Constitution when it isn't convenient. Translation: you are no defender of national security, and you are not defending National Security when you ignore the limitations the Constitution places on executive power, even when said power claims to be acting on behalf of national security.

(Wow, just wow)

I don't know anyplace in the Constitution that prohibits wire tapping, especially when the sound waves that are intercepted are all around us no matter where you are at. Now if you're referring to the Fourth Amendment, our founders didn't want the government forcing entry into your home, tearing up the floor boards of your daughters bedroom looking for evidence against the state.

Intercepting sound wavs is spying, and spying is as old as the country itself.

Now if Reagan called his actions Fast and Furious, I bet you would have no problem with Iran Contra.

Fourth Amendment

 

[Rustic]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

100% stupid!! National defense is in Constitution. Isis could kill millions of us so we obviously have to defend ourselves any way possible!! Disrupting their plots through Patriot Act functions is better than nuking them.

The Constitution stipulates the rules the executive must follow when acting. This means Reagan can' t sell weapons to Iran (behind the backs of the American People & Congress). And it means Bush can't illegally tap the phones of American citizens (which is why the deeply conservative Ashcroft pulled the plug on Bush).

Partisans protect dear leader, even when he violates the Constitution. Defenders of the Constitution hold both parties accountable. They defend the Constitution when it isn't convenient. Translation: you are no defender of national security, and you are not defending National Security when you ignore the limitations the Constitution places on executive power, even when said power claims to be acting on behalf of national security.

(Wow, just wow)

I don't know anyplace in the Constitution that prohibits wire tapping, especially when the sound waves that are intercepted are all around us no matter where you are at. Now if you're referring to the Fourth Amendment, our founders didn't want the government forcing entry into your home, tearing up the floor boards of your daughters bedroom looking for evidence against the state.

Intercepting sound wavs is spying, and spying is as old as the country itself.

Now if Reagan called his actions Fast and Furious, I bet you would have no problem with Iran Contra.

Fourth Amendment

OMG!! 4th does not prevent National Defense!!

 

[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?

What they mean by smaller government is that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want regulation on business.

They love big government as long as it's big conservative government.

Some do. They are referred to as the Establishment Republicans, and we are trying to get rid of them as well.

What is big government? Big government is spending money on anything outside of what is listed in the US Constitution. And no......... general welfare does not mean health insurance, food stamps or HUD homes in the suburbs.

Funny how the US Constitution becomes soooo important for some things, but when the 14th Amendment protects people's ability to marry, like gay people, then the Constitution is suddenly bad.

 

[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?

What they mean by smaller government is that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want regulation on business.

They love big government as long as it's big conservative government.

Some do. They are referred to as the Establishment Republicans, and we are trying to get rid of them as well.

What is big government? Big government is spending money on anything outside of what is listed in the US Constitution. And no......... general welfare does not mean health insurance, food stamps or HUD homes in the suburbs.

Funny how the US Constitution becomes soooo important for some things, but when the 14th Amendment protects people's ability to marry, like gay people, then the Constitution is suddenly bad.

People's ability to marry was never in jeopardy. What was in question was whether our government should recognize the marriage or not. In most states, people voted against such recognition, but our weak kneed judges obviously thought that the vote of the people shouldn't count.

You can apply the 14th to just about anything, but our founders never once mentioned marriage in the US Constitution.

 

[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?

What they mean by smaller government is that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want regulation on business.

They love big government as long as it's big conservative government.

Some do. They are referred to as the Establishment Republicans, and we are trying to get rid of them as well.

What is big government? Big government is spending money on anything outside of what is listed in the US Constitution. And no......... general welfare does not mean health insurance, food stamps or HUD homes in the suburbs.

Funny how the US Constitution becomes soooo important for some things, but when the 14th Amendment protects people's ability to marry, like gay people, then the Constitution is suddenly bad.

People's ability to marry was never in jeopardy. What was in question was whether our government should recognize the marriage or not. In most states, people voted against such recognition, but our weak kneed judges obviously thought that the vote of the people shouldn't count.

You can apply the 14th to just about anything, but our founders never once mentioned marriage in the US Constitution.

Well, marriage wasn't necessarily the issue anyway. It was whether people could gain the benefits from marrying or not. This is about recognizing the marriage.

Yeah, in some states people failed to understand the principles the country is based upon. Hardly surprising seeing how they vote on a consistent basis.

The "weak kneed judges" who implemented the Constitution AS IT SHOULD BE clearly thought that human rights should NOT be available for the general public to decide who get protections and who shouldn't, just like the "weak kneed" founding fathers too.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Exactly. Reagan tripled Carter's debt

Absolutely false... Reagan did nothing of the kind. The Leftist Legislature tripled the debt... and they did so throughout the mid-60s when they voted in "The Great Society".

{Reagan} doubled the number of federal employees.

US Military... Reagan increased the size of the US Military. But that's only because the US Constitution mandates that the President of the US provide for the common defense. Carter's evisceration of the US Military fell far short of a military sufficient for such.

Never before has there been such a large gap between a president's rhetoric and his action. Reagan fucking increased the debt ceiling over 10 times and the left the nation with long term structural deficits.

Again you conflate Reagan with the Legislature.

Now to understand how that works, we need look no farther than US Federal Spending during the period 1995, through 2000. Particularly within that period '95-'98, wherein the Legislature was dominated not just by Republicans, but Conservative Republicans; which is to say Americans. During that period, we heard Wet Willie himself declare: "THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS OVER..." and I doubt that there is a single knuckle-dragger on this board that doesn't have at least 100 posts wherein they demanded that "WILLIAM THE BUBBA BALANCED THE BUDGET"; being entirely ignorant of US republican governance. In truth, Lil' Willie didn't balance a fuckin' thing and was dragged kicking and screaming to a sound economic policy, by those American Legislators.

Bush had the luxury of a republican House/Senate for the majority of his 8 years

Six of the eight... minimal majorities with a high density of Prog-Republicans.

and they raised the debt ceiling 6 times.

Yes... but they didn't spend 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY OVER BUDGET. Bush averaged 150 billion in deficit, per year, through 2006... . Naturally, when the Left came to power in 2006, that changed dramatically.
Of course, that tripling of Bush's Spending by the Democrats was NOTHING like what was to come once you idiots came to Presidential power with the Brown Clown; which increased from Bush's Republican spending by an order of magnitude, from an average of 150 Billion, to 1500 BILLION IN ANNUAL OBAMA DEFICIT SPENDING.

FOX News didn't make a peep.

Why would they?

 

[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?

What they mean by smaller government is that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want regulation on business.

They love big government as long as it's big conservative government.

Some do. They are referred to as the Establishment Republicans, and we are trying to get rid of them as well.

What is big government? Big government is spending money on anything outside of what is listed in the US Constitution. And no......... general welfare does not mean health insurance, food stamps or HUD homes in the suburbs.

Funny how the US Constitution becomes soooo important for some things, but when the 14th Amendment protects people's ability to marry, like gay people, then the Constitution is suddenly bad.

People's ability to marry was never in jeopardy. What was in question was whether our government should recognize the marriage or not. In most states, people voted against such recognition, but our weak kneed judges obviously thought that the vote of the people shouldn't count.

You can apply the 14th to just about anything, but our founders never once mentioned marriage in the US Constitution.

Well, marriage wasn't necessarily the issue anyway. It was whether people could gain the benefits from marrying or not. This is about recognizing the marriage.

Yeah, in some states people failed to understand the principles the country is based upon. Hardly surprising seeing how they vote on a consistent basis.

The "weak kneed judges" who implemented the Constitution AS IT SHOULD BE clearly thought that human rights should NOT be available for the general public to decide who get protections and who shouldn't, just like the "weak kneed" founding fathers too.

Really? The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

Well said...

I'd only add, that 'Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman'.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What they mean by smaller government is that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want regulation on business.

They love big government as long as it's big conservative government.

Some do. They are referred to as the Establishment Republicans, and we are trying to get rid of them as well.

What is big government? Big government is spending money on anything outside of what is listed in the US Constitution. And no......... general welfare does not mean health insurance, food stamps or HUD homes in the suburbs.

Funny how the US Constitution becomes soooo important for some things, but when the 14th Amendment protects people's ability to marry, like gay people, then the Constitution is suddenly bad.

People's ability to marry was never in jeopardy. What was in question was whether our government should recognize the marriage or not. In most states, people voted against such recognition, but our weak kneed judges obviously thought that the vote of the people shouldn't count.

You can apply the 14th to just about anything, but our founders never once mentioned marriage in the US Constitution.

Well, marriage wasn't necessarily the issue anyway. It was whether people could gain the benefits from marrying or not. This is about recognizing the marriage.

Yeah, in some states people failed to understand the principles the country is based upon. Hardly surprising seeing how they vote on a consistent basis.

The "weak kneed judges" who implemented the Constitution AS IT SHOULD BE clearly thought that human rights should NOT be available for the general public to decide who get protections and who shouldn't, just like the "weak kneed" founding fathers too.

Really? The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

The Founding Fathers made the BILL OF RIGHTS, and they made the Bill of Rights to be protected for ALL PEOPLE, not just the will of the majority. That was my point. It wasn't about whether they'd agree with the 14th or not.

Fine, marriage should have nothing to do with the govt.

However under the LAW the govt does get in on it, and it does offer things that you only get if you're married. Therefore gay people need to be able to get such things, and the only way to get such things is through marriage.

So, two choices. Govt gets out of marriage, or gay people can get married. Seeing as the former isn't going to happen, the latter is there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

Well said...

I'd only add, that 'Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman'.

And cheese means mold, well it did in the olden days, but the word changed.

Things change. The English speaking world has the UK, Australia, South Africa, the US and parts of Canada with marriage meaning two consenting adults. I'm sorry you can't cope with change.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Some do. They are referred to as the Establishment Republicans, and we are trying to get rid of them as well.

What is big government? Big government is spending money on anything outside of what is listed in the US Constitution. And no......... general welfare does not mean health insurance, food stamps or HUD homes in the suburbs.

Funny how the US Constitution becomes soooo important for some things, but when the 14th Amendment protects people's ability to marry, like gay people, then the Constitution is suddenly bad.

People's ability to marry was never in jeopardy. What was in question was whether our government should recognize the marriage or not. In most states, people voted against such recognition, but our weak kneed judges obviously thought that the vote of the people shouldn't count.

You can apply the 14th to just about anything, but our founders never once mentioned marriage in the US Constitution.

Well, marriage wasn't necessarily the issue anyway. It was whether people could gain the benefits from marrying or not. This is about recognizing the marriage.

Yeah, in some states people failed to understand the principles the country is based upon. Hardly surprising seeing how they vote on a consistent basis.

The "weak kneed judges" who implemented the Constitution AS IT SHOULD BE clearly thought that human rights should NOT be available for the general public to decide who get protections and who shouldn't, just like the "weak kneed" founding fathers too.

Really? The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

The Founding Fathers made the BILL OF RIGHTS, and they made the Bill of Rights to be protected for ALL PEOPLE, not just the will of the majority. That was my point. It wasn't about whether they'd agree with the 14th or not.

Fine, marriage should have nothing to do with the govt.

However under the LAW the govt does get in on it, and it does offer things that you only get if you're married. Therefore gay people need to be able to get such things, and the only way to get such things is through marriage.

So, two choices. Govt gets out of marriage, or gay people can get married. Seeing as the former isn't going to happen, the latter is there.

I see, so the reason to allow gay marriage is because of government benefits?

Okay, so what if brother and sister want such benefits, should they be allowed to marry too?

How about father and daughter? I'm sure she could use that extra SS money after pop dies.

And let's not leave out the gay community: how about mother and daughter getting married? We certainly can't deny them any government benefits.

But I'm sure our founders would welcome these types of marriages so that nobody is left out of government benefits, don't you think?

 

[FA_Q2]

Funny how the US Constitution becomes soooo important for some things, but when the 14th Amendment protects people's ability to marry, like gay people, then the Constitution is suddenly bad.

People's ability to marry was never in jeopardy. What was in question was whether our government should recognize the marriage or not. In most states, people voted against such recognition, but our weak kneed judges obviously thought that the vote of the people shouldn't count.

You can apply the 14th to just about anything, but our founders never once mentioned marriage in the US Constitution.

Well, marriage wasn't necessarily the issue anyway. It was whether people could gain the benefits from marrying or not. This is about recognizing the marriage.

Yeah, in some states people failed to understand the principles the country is based upon. Hardly surprising seeing how they vote on a consistent basis.

The "weak kneed judges" who implemented the Constitution AS IT SHOULD BE clearly thought that human rights should NOT be available for the general public to decide who get protections and who shouldn't, just like the "weak kneed" founding fathers too.

Really? The founding fathers were all dead long before the 14th, so what makes you think they would approve?

Marriage is not a human right, it is a religious rite. And our government should have nothing to do with marriage, especially when it comes to any kind of government benefit.

The Founding Fathers made the BILL OF RIGHTS, and they made the Bill of Rights to be protected for ALL PEOPLE, not just the will of the majority. That was my point. It wasn't about whether they'd agree with the 14th or not.

Fine, marriage should have nothing to do with the govt.

However under the LAW the govt does get in on it, and it does offer things that you only get if you're married. Therefore gay people need to be able to get such things, and the only way to get such things is through marriage.

So, two choices. Govt gets out of marriage, or gay people can get married. Seeing as the former isn't going to happen, the latter is there.

I see, so the reason to allow gay marriage is because of government benefits?

Okay, so what if brother and sister want such benefits, should they be allowed to marry too?

How about father and daughter? I'm sure she could use that extra SS money after pop dies.

And let's not leave out the gay community: how about mother and daughter getting married? We certainly can't deny them any government benefits.

But I'm sure our founders would welcome these types of marriages so that nobody is left out of government benefits, don't you think?

Yup - all should be allowed as long as the parties are 2 consenting adults.

That is what happens when you want government involved in every faucet of our lives - it ends up supporting things that you might find despicable.

 

[FA_Q2]

100% stupid!! National defense is in Constitution. Isis could kill millions of us so we obviously have to defend ourselves any way possible!! Disrupting their plots through Patriot Act functions is better than nuking them.

The Constitution stipulates the rules the executive must follow when acting. This means Reagan can' t sell weapons to Iran (behind the backs of the American People & Congress). And it means Bush can't illegally tap the phones of American citizens (which is why the deeply conservative Ashcroft pulled the plug on Bush).

Partisans protect dear leader, even when he violates the Constitution. Defenders of the Constitution hold both parties accountable. They defend the Constitution when it isn't convenient. Translation: you are no defender of national security, and you are not defending National Security when you ignore the limitations the Constitution places on executive power, even when said power claims to be acting on behalf of national security.

(Wow, just wow)

I don't know anyplace in the Constitution that prohibits wire tapping, especially when the sound waves that are intercepted are all around us no matter where you are at. Now if you're referring to the Fourth Amendment, our founders didn't want the government forcing entry into your home, tearing up the floor boards of your daughters bedroom looking for evidence against the state.

Intercepting sound wavs is spying, and spying is as old as the country itself.

Now if Reagan called his actions Fast and Furious, I bet you would have no problem with Iran Contra.

Fourth Amendment

OMG!! 4th does not prevent National Defense!!

And national defense has nothing to do with the current spying on internal citizens.