Maybe you should try reading what I wrote in context. I wasn’t trying to set forth a full unimpeachable definition of what it means to want small government. I was simply pointing out that small government advocates are concerned with they types of activities carried on by the government, not necessarily the overall level of government activity at any one time.
For example, under the OP’s view, the invasion of Normandy in WWII would violate small government principles (because it involved an increase in government activity), but that just isn’t the case (since fighting wars is one of the things on any small government advocate’s list of proper government activities).
Prejudice is assigning to people charactaristics they do not possess, based on factors beyond their control. Those factors include skin color, gender, and sexual orientation. Or it’s judging people by actions they’re more or less forced to commit by having their options severely and/or sometimes violentlyrestricted by the very people who then judge them harshly. For example, the anti-choicers that bitch at women for unintended pregnancies, despite making birth control harder and harder to get.
What you’re doing, Snowflake, is bitching that judging your party and your principles by the consistent actions repeatedly taken by people like you is somehow unfair when it is, in fact, nothing but the justice you and others like you so richly deserve. You’re being judged by your actions and those of the people you defend----and the lies and evasions you employ to defend those scumbags. Suck on that.
Being a small government advocate isn’t incidental to his role in government. He ran on that principle. His desire to expand government greatly doesn’t resolve the hypocrisy. Oh, he just wants small government here and here, but not there and there. Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? If a school principal ran on higher accountability and then did away with math tests, you might say “Principal behind accountability bails on math standards.” His stated position is in obvious misalignment with his actions, and both relate directly to his professional role. We’re not picking on him for being bald or divorced. We are speaking directly to his position.
Well, he just meant accountability over here, you say, and never wanted it there. So be it. That is why he’s a hypocrite.
Perhaps someone could provide, precisely and specifically, the text of the actual bill that they believe is flawed with respect to handling miscarriages?
There are predictable, lemming-like runs of agreement with the OP, that links to a blog that quotes another blog summarizing the bill, but a read through the proposed text of the bill doesn’t actually reveal any “Uterus Police” provision.
The closest thing to what’s being described that I have found is:
And to derail any future complaints before they begin: this threads appears to me to be a complaint about a proposed LAW. So to discuss it, it will be necessary to discuss the LAW.
Oh, goody! Bricker’s here, and he’s going to pretend that he doesn’t know what sarcasm is, act like things happen in a vacuum, and parse things that benefit his argument in a ridiculously anal-retentive fashion. Watch him take the preceding sentence and argue the meaning of each and every word in it.
Let’s try for something a bit more controversial, like the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. Are you say that is somethings that your “small government advocate” would automatically endorse, because that’s automatically a “proper government activity”? That seems odd to me, because the alternative of not invading Iraq would actually mean a smaller role for the US government: it would be doing less, and spending less money.
Do you really mean that, because “fighting wars is …on [the] list of proper government activities”, that there is no reason to question the justification for particular wars?
I guess that means you don’t have any actual argument to offer?
Because that sentence sure seems heavy on, “Complain about Bricker,” and light – indeed, non-existant – with “Refute Bricker’s argument,” or “Answer Bricker’s pointed question.”
Can’t blame you, what with your devastating intellectual handicap, but must you blatantly display your failings? Aren’t you just a bit ashamed of them?
Or did you hear that the Board’s motto is “Fighting ignorance,” and decide to stick up for the underdog?
I love how the most vocal proponents of dumbassery are so offended when they get called on it, in a thread purportedly complaining about dumbassery
There’s much to criticize in the bill that’s the subject of the OP. The bill’s text inveighs against Roe v. Wade and argues that the Supreme Court lacked power and jurisdiction to decide it. It seeks to criminalize abortion, and rename it as “prenatal murder” in the criminal code.
All of these actions are either null, or forbidden to a state under federal constitutional law. A thread complaining about these flaws would get no reaction (except agreement) from me.
But instead, there seems to be an effort to focus on the one thing that does not (from my reading of it, anyway) appear to be correct. There’s nothing in the bill that I can tell that addresses any particular heightened vigilance to miscarriages. I may be wrong, and if so, I’d surely fold like a cheap suit upon being directed to the bill’s language that imposes this heightened scrutiny.
But no. Instead, margin, a prominent leader in the Dumbassery Movement, shrieks hysterically at my comments, demanding the right to spout agreement with idiocy unimpeded by facts.
In fact, I bet I can see where this one is going to go. Three pages of idiots arguing that I’m wrong, followed by a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger post explaining that the REAL complaint is the general hostility towards Women’s Reproductive Rights, and that this isn’t a thread about Law, but about Freedom and Justice, amorphous and ever-changing concepts. It’s about FEELINGS, nothing more than feelings, trying to forget my, feelings of…
Fine. If that’s truly the thread’s purpose, just forthrightly acknowledge it, and I’ll save everyone the effort.
But if there’s any part of this thread dedicated to defending the proposition that this proposed bill contains language heightening the requirements to investigate a misscarriage, then let’s see the evidence.
I already responded to this–I demonstrated why what he is doing does not violate small government principles. Why don’t you respond to my argument instead of just restating yours?
I think when the thread was created, the OP did honestly believe that the third-hand account of one blog quoting another was accurate. They saw the blog; the knee jerked, here we are. We might get a few pages of people trying to cover up the fact that the major premise of the OP is non-existent.
“Anti-abortion people are evil and bad - they proposed X”.
“Nobody is proposing X - the pro-abortion blog is lying”.
Not to get in the way of an old-fashioned slapfight, but it appears that the “registration of spontaneous fetal deaths” is already Georgia law. The proposed legislation just modifies the existing law to eliminate references to abortion.