My reading of most tea partiers is that they do indeed define the size of government as the dollars it spends. “Small government” means “lower my taxes”.
I’m a college graduate and I haven’t the faintest idea what you were getting at in your post. “Some people with things…”, what people, that things?
Or was that supposed to be “some people wish things…”?
It may help if you understand that the bolded word is a typo. I’m fairly sure he meant ‘wish’.
ETA: Beaten by Robot Arm.
When you with upon a star
Makes no diff what group you are!
For when you with upon a star
Your drums come true!
Yes. Anyone with a 5ht grade education would have noticed the typo. 
Maybe not thomeone with a thecond grade education, though.
Well, though what?
It’s not my fault you chose a typo that rendered your sentence grammatically coherent yet utterly meaningless. 
I was trying to parse out “some people with things” as a grammatical unit and wondering who the hell in that category hadn’t changed since 1920.
Regardless–I think anyone who straight wishes for the US to “go back to 1920” is too deluded to understand what they’re wishing for–not the least because of the multitude of changes in the world stage since then.
Actually, I’d say the same for anyone expressing the wish to roll back the clock any significant number of years (say, about a decade or so). We still have to live in 2011.
As for “only wanting to hear opinions I agree with”, the hell. I don’t think arguing for “small government” in a vaccuum is meant to mean anything close to “I want to increase some government, but cut more elsewhere” in the current communications context. Other people can disagree, and I’m free to think they’re being disingenuous–hell, by that definition I am for small government if you fiddle the math enough.
And how many people who wish to go back to 1920 have first hand memories of what it was really like back then?
Besides which, Bryan Fischer, the guy mentioned in the OP, doesn’t want to roll things back to 1920, he wants to roll things back to about 1620.
Lord knows you’ve been given ample opportunity on this messageboard to see what different people mean when they say they want small government (and really the phrase more often used is “smaller government,” but whatever), but please do choose to remain ignorant if you want to (and it sure does seem to me that you want to).
Nope. You and MEBuckner are missing several things here.
First, the convention the OP is discussing is a venue for social conservatives to talk about social conservative ideas. There’s no requirement that anyone at that convention be a fiscal conservative. Every single one of them could be fiscal liberals for all any of us know.
Second, just because someone votes Republican doesn’t mean they agree with everything that other people who vote Republican believe. God knows why I’m stuck with voting for social conservatives if I want to vote for a fiscal conservative, but that’s how things are now and I’ve just got to deal with it. I don’t mind the fact that great swaths of idiots vote for Republicans for stupid reasons as long as they keep voting for Republicans. On your side, there are similarly great swaths of idiots voting for Democrats for reasons that other Democrats find stupid.
Third, fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are not necessarily or inherently contradictory. Fiscal conservatism isn’t really about the size of government in the sense of the amount of government activity, it’s about the size of government in the sense of the spheres in which the government acts. With respect to homosexuality in particular, first of all I don’t think most social conservatives want it criminalized, and if they do then tough titties because SCOTUS said you can’t do that (see also abortion), and second of all if they do want it criminalized then that’s not an expansion of government in the “spheres in which the government acts” sense because one of the fundamental functions of government has always been to enforce criminal laws.
Finally, just because there are so many fucking absolute retards on this board, let me say that I’m not a social conservative, I’m totally cool with gay people, I would vote for gay marriage if given the opportunity, I don’t have a problem with the existence of Roe v. Wade or want to do stuff to decrease access to abortions, etc. and etc.
I don’t think so actually. I think we’re more apt to point out that it’s silly that other religious people declare their own religion to be legitimate and other religions to be a cult along pretty arbitrary lines. The people who will say mormonism is a cult here are probably more along the “yeah, mormonism is a cult, they all are” lines.
I think the key defining point of a cult is that it tries to isolate its followers from their previous lives and the outside world in order to control them, so Mormonism doesn’t qualify.
Which doesn’t mean it’s not transparently silly - but it’s not really the place for religious people to point out how silly another religion is.
So it’s the same people, voting for the same candidates, voting as one big block, who apparently you acknowledge as holding these apparently mutually exclusive positions - and yet we’re not allowed to question their positions so long as they wear the “social conservative” hat one day and not the “fiscal conservative” one?
You’re acknowledging that there’s a big overlap, that a ton of the same people claim to be about small government and yet also want the government to legislate sexuality - and then you’re admonishing someone for pointing out this contradiction that you seem to admit exists.
Hmm, well, no. After all, one could equally well point out that another of the fundamental functions of government has always been to levy taxes. Yet we never find the “small government” (or “smaller government”) advocates arguing that tax increases don’t count as “expansion of government”, do we?
Moreover, while you may be right that most social conservatives don’t want to re-criminalize homosexual acts (and I sincerely hope you are), that’s no reason not to Pit the particular social conservative loonywipes at the “Values Voters Summit” who do advocate such measures.
Wait, what if you don’t know that the guy you’re having sex with is a homosexual?
I think that amost everyone wants some increase in government, usually, the part that helps them, or advances their beliefs. People, in general, are selfish. So, I don’t think they’re being disingenuous when they say “I want smaller government - but I want to keep or expand this little basket of things that I like.” They’re just being assholes
Oh, dude. I had no idea. I lived in Waco for two years. You were *born *there, you poor bastard?
As I explained in the post you apparently missed, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive and there is not necessarily any contradiction between the two positions.
You are confused. You seem to be saying that the reason fiscal conservatives object to raising taxes is because of the increase in government activity to collect those taxes, but that is of course absurd. FCs don’t object to all theoretically possible tax increases at all. They only object to those that will be used as a wealth re-distribution tool or to fund programs that they believe the government shouldn’t do.
OK. Pit them all you want, just don’t assume that everyone who holds that position is an FC (or vice versa) or that that position is inconsistent with being an FC.
I object to whatever funding is providing Rand Rover the ability to be a complete weepy genital in basically every thread where someone uses the word “conservative” in a way that doesn’t have his specific imprimatur.
Just trying to fight ignorance, broseph. But keep beating on strawmen if that’s where you wanna be when jesus returns.
I’m just sayin’, it makes you come off as the Comic Book Guy talkin’ about Ultimate Superman.
Granted, that’d be a step up for you, socially.