Mobby, if you increase federal power and spending on issues that you think are relevant for a nation and constitutional, then that's increasing the size and power of the federal government.
Not if in turn you also advocate the elimination of the huge amount of un-needed social programs which would absolutely result in an overal reduction in our government.
Let me explain it a way you can understand.
If the goverment = 100.
Military spending is say = 30.
Social programs is say = 70
If I advocate more miltary spending up to say = 40 (a +10 increase)
but want to cut social programs by a net = 35 (a -35 decrease)
thats a 25% reduction in government.
Very basic idea there but I think have presented it in a method you can grasp.
Wrong. Because Bill is right. You always side with big government on a range of issues. If you are for that Patriot Act, and similar laws, then there is no way, shape, or form, in which you can be called a small government advocate.
Wrong. Small government doesnt mean 'inadequate to meet the legitimate needs of our nation'. I desire a 'smaller' government than we currently have. Try to get that through your head.
If you oppose gay marriage, then there is no way, shape, or form, in which you can be called a small government advocate.
Oh bullcrap. Now you are spouting complete nonsense. I could argue the very opposite of that saying that advocating the status quo actually results in no new governmental growth, while changing the status quo does increase it.
/sheesh. At least try to retain some semblance of common sense in your allegations.
If you think abortion should be illegal, then there is no way, shape, or form, in which you can be called a small government advocate.
More utter bullcrap. I think the issue of abortion should be dropped from the federal level 100% and left up to the individual states to decide how they desire to legislate it.
And if you constantly think people are guilty until proven innocent, like recently with Michael Jackson, then there is no way, shape, or form, in which you can be called a small government advocate.
Ahhh. Right. Cause believing OJ wasnt innocent creates big government.
Your wheels have popped off your bus.
I thought my clarification was clear. You clearly identify as being 'for small government': but you're certainly not 'for small government' when compared to conservatives. There's a spectrum amongst the conservatives that is regarding the size of government, and you wouldn't compare amongst them as 'small'. You're very authoritarian.
Again, I am all for limited the size and spending of our government to be authoritarian.
Didnt you hear me earlier? I absolutely voted against government regulations against smoking here in Washington State while a ton of my fellow non-smoking conservative brethren happily voted for something they didnt like, even if it expanded governments involvement in our life. I voted against it because I didnt think it was right for the state gov to tell tavern/bar owners how to run their business.
I may be authoritarian in comparison to you...but that doesnt make me default in favor of big government.
Like I said, you often are to the left of me it comes to government, and I'm not overwhelmingly 'for small government'.
The left of you? How exactly?
If you want a small list regarding policies you're known to not be 'small government' compared to other conservatives: DOMA, death penalty, sin taxes, police taking people's flags, military spending (including Military Industrial Complex), and being unwilling to reduce your own pension entitlements to balance the budgets.
Now, balance that against the things I would absolutely want cut in government. Because without that context, its only a 1 sided picture.
Btw, I dont recall having ever been for 'sin taxes'..so I am not sure why you put that in there. Also, where have you read that conservatives were against DOMA?
Or the death penalty...or military spending? I mean really, the overwhelming majority of conservatives I know are for those type of things.
Again, being 'pro' the things you think the government SHOULD be doing doesnt automatically make you 'pro' big government if indeed you want all the crap it shouldnt be invovled in (i.e. running corporations and giving handouts) cut.
But being for small federal government is not being for small government as a whole if a person is not for small state and local government. In fact, many of the people who are for the maximum government want that government to be at the state and local government. And many of those people are for "states rights", not because they are for small government, but specifically the opposite: Defeating "states rights" reduced government power. And that is the reason that they support states rights, they hate that government power was reigned in.
