Yeah, because outside of the Straight Dope, nobody ever uses the term “conservative” without qualifying it with either “fiscal” or “social”, least of all conservatives themselves.
But isn’t a fiscal conservative therefore a social liberal and vice-versa? How many people would insist they’re neither kind of liberal?
Bull fucking shit.
Not all but a “shitload”, define that as you will, of small government types are the very first to be hypocrital dickweeds. I mean, your small government people are all up in arms about Obama care and the Socialization of America, but they are the first to want to be invasive about what a women chooses to do with her body. And they are manning the barricades on cutting funding to Planned Parenthood.
The small government movement may sound great in theory, but it has been hijacked (or ever thus) by a buncha pinheads that are use the small government meme to remove enforcement on environmental regulations, food health, oversight of the free market knows best ninnys that allowed Wall Street to almost bring down the global economic system, ad nauseum.
Wow…just…wow. That’s some hardcore crazy there.
A little sugar for your porridge, sir?
Probably make more sense to write the headline as: “Snowmobile salesman shoots up liquor store and rapes cats.”
I really suggest you work on your impulse control, btw; raping cats is really kinda sick.
Ok, I wasn’t sure I could find this but I did.
A year go almost exactly, Enderw24 started a thread in GD titled, Utah law to criminalize miscarriages
Here’s Enderw24’s OP from that thread
Here is an excellent article discussing the implications of Utah’s bill - specifically that the bill is aimed at the pregnant woman, not at an attacker. A woman who drinks too much could be prosecuted under Utah’s law if she has a miscarriage, even if she wasn’t trying to induce one, because she engaged in risky behavior.
Shortly after national attention was turned on the bill, its sponsor, Carl Wimmer, returned it to the State legeslation to remove the word “reckless act”. The Governor of Utah was reportedly concerned about unintended consequences from the original version. The new version sailed through and was signed by Gov. Gary Herbert early last March.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/145956/utah_governor_signs_controversial_law_charging_women_and_girls_with_murder_for_miscarriages
I have not been able to find any stories from the last year of a woman actually being investigated under this law. It’s possible that investigations are ongoing. It’s also possible that they’re nonexistent. It’s very late and my googlefu is tired.
I mention all this because Ender's thread was chock full of "small government advocates" saying things like, "well, it's a bad law, but it's the will of the people, so what can you do?" and "No one would *ever* dream of investigating every miscarriage!!" and "It's completely unreasonable to think that anti-abortion opponents would try to expand on this law!!!"
So no, I guess I'm not really surprised about this Georgia "small government nut" or that there are other "small government nuts" in this thread trying to excuse him.Yeah, I just saw a copy of this article (in the AJC, the Atlanta rag) today while I was waiting to get an oil change for my car. While it’s not remotely as bad as wanting the state to be in the business of further traumatizing women who have just had miscarriages, it still has that same :smack:-worthy quality to it.
So, on the one hand:
and
But on the other hand, the article is about how happy Mr. Luquire is to have won a political victory on behalf of his organization…blocking a bill to allow Georgia counties and cities to have popular referendums on whether to allow Sunday alcohol sales. And the article also mentions he’s working on another issue: Blocking the legalization of slot machines. Oh, but
Well, yes, Jerry, but your rules are stupid. Note: It’s generally legal in Georgia to buy alcoholic beverages on Sunday in a restaurant–a place which is, by definition, not one’s home, and which, given the state of public transportation in this state, will almost certainly be reached by driving there in your car. And then driving back home again afterwards. What’s not legal is someone buying beer, wine, or liquor on Sunday at a store and bringing the stuff back home to get buzzed, drunk, or sloshed, or just have a glass of wine with their meal, in their own homes, where they presumably will not have to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and drive on the public roadways to get from the dining room to the bedroom. (And it’s obviously not even remotely effective as some kind of actual Prohibition, since you can buy booze at the store on the other six days a week, so it’s just a pointless vestigial pandering to the teetotaling wing of the Christian supremacists, keeping everyone else from buying Demon Rum on their Holy Day.)
I am sick and tired of the beady-eyed loon wing of conservatives wrapping themselves in the rhetoric of libertarianism. I’m not a libertarian, but at least I agree with them some of the time, and Jerry Luquire and his ilk are not libertarians.
That is a stupid definition, and you are stupid for proposing it. Everyone, liberal or conservative, dictator or anarchist, wants to “limit the activities of the government to only certain things”, since “certain things” means nada.
So if I were to campaign for a law that would take away everyone’s guns, but would declare all reproductive issues off-limits to legislation, can I claim to be for small government, too?
Oh, y’all love your wars, alright. That much is for goddamn sure. (Funny that that’s one of the few gov’t roles you overtly specify as desirable… :dubious:) You all tend not to give much of a shit about the poor or the sick (or even the planet itself), but you gotta have them wars! Whether they’re fuck well justified or not.
And with respect to smallgovernmentism being “about limiting the activities of government to only certain things,” that’s right. And in your view, those “certain things” just happen–coincidentally enough–to be just those areas that are y’all’s pet policy objectives, and not objectively necessary government functions. In other words, it’s hypocrisy. Exactly as tnetennba and China Guy pointed out (but which you seemed not to grasp). You want “small government,” except for the government shit that you really want. So let’s dispense with the “small government” bullshit. If you want to be more honest, you should start yammering about and advocating “small liberal influence on government”. Then you can at least have your cake and eat it, too, without the icing of hypocrisy.
Whether you personally don’t think this Georgia fucknut’s bill proposal is government intrusion/overstepping, or not, is largely irrelevant. A great many Americans do (or would) think so, and it’s certainly not a necessary function of any government, whether federal, state, or local.
How you can still call that within the bounds of smallgovernmentism while keeping a straight face, is beyond me.
I want to limit conservatives in government. I must be a small government advocate! 
A meaningless position; that is also the position of so called “big government” advocates, short of totalitarians.
In reality it just means that so-called “small government” advocates want the government to leave the rich and powerful alone while invading the lives of the “little people”. And to fight wars and oppress people with the wrong skin color, sexuality, religion or genitals. And make sure those little people don’t get uppity towards their betters.
But investigating the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful or restraining them from doing whatever they please to whomever they please? That’s right out!
SDMB needs a “Like” button for posts. 
As someone pointed out some time ago:
…and since the U.S. Constitution specifies that American citizenship is acquired at birth or naturalization, all fetuses are undocumented aliens!
They’re probably all planning to sneak out of their mothers uteruses in the dead of night to have anchor babies to help them secure citizenship.
Fetuses are sneaky that way.
Same damn thing happened here in Washington State last November. Conservatives went bonkers about taxes, too much government regulation, leave business to the private sector…
Our voter initiative to allow private businesses to sell alcohol got trounced.
Well, aren’t you the special snowflake? Point is, dipshit, that this is a long-standing issue with these assholes and even if you aren’t like them, they are, so shut up and let her complain.
OK, this one I’m genuinely curious about. How do you secretly go communist ? Are all private business owners secretly in league with The Party, are there secret five year plans, what ?
I’ve heard that sort of claim before, from the sort of people who think markings on highway signs are direction markers for the upcoming UN led invasion forces, or that the US Navy is dumping M-16s overboard and replacing them with Kalashnikovs (because Kalashnikovs are intrinsically more Communist somehow, I suppose). Although not so much recently since the USSR collapsed so long ago. Some far right types think or thought that most or all of the US government secretly works for the Communists, along with evil liberal industries like Hollywood as far as I understand.
Who?