PDA

View Full Version : “Small Government Conservatives” Who Worship the State




bobbyw24
01-10-2010, 08:02 AM
Wait, Hannity and O'Reilly are Small Govt conservatives?

Posted by Kevin Carson on Jan 8, 2010 in Commentary • 4 comments

Some time back, someone commented on an earlier column by saying “small government” conservatives only hated the government when it offered people a crutch, not when it clubbed them. There’s a lot of truth in that.

Listening to most movement conservatives, you get the impression that the military and police don’t count as part of the government. They talk a good game about “big government” and its intrusiveness, how it meddles in everything, how dangerous it is, and so forth. For example, take Michelle Malkin—please. She wants a government that’s small—just big enough to perform essential functions, like rounding up a few hundred thousand of its own citizens because of their ethnic background, and holding them without trial in internment camps.

Bill O’Reilly doesn’t like big government—but he thinks terrorist thugs should be killed “on the spot.” So apparently a government can be acceptably “small”—even with the power to kill anyone it claims is guilty of a crime. Once O’Reilly defended the right of police to harass people they “knew” were guilty, when they couldn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a jury.

Sean Hannity’s second to none when it comes to denouncing “big government”—but he practically wet himself when Ted Kennedy accused Bush of lying about Iraq. Kennedy committed the heinous crime of—gasp—“calling the Commander-in-Chief a liar… in WARTIME!”


http://c4ss.org/content/1662

kathy88
01-10-2010, 08:05 AM
Nice. I'm glad people are calling them out.

LibertyEagle
01-10-2010, 08:28 AM
They're not conservatives. Never were.

kathy88
01-10-2010, 08:33 AM
They're not conservatives. Never were.


Unfortunately LE too many people think they are. So many people walk into that voting booth and vote a straight ticket. Hey, they're on the R ticket, they must be conservative. No one cares enough to do the reserach on each individual race.

Icymudpuppy
01-10-2010, 08:37 AM
Unfortunately LE too many people think they are. So many people walk into that voting booth and vote a straight ticket. Hey, they're on the R ticket, they must be conservative. No one cares enough to do the reserach on each individual race.

Precisely why voting rights should be restricted.

kathy88
01-10-2010, 08:48 AM
Precisely why voting rights should be restricted.


That's a bit anti-liberty, don't you think? Based upon what criteria? A test? IQ? Gender? Race? Demographics? Everyone _______ organization deems worthy?

powerofreason
01-10-2010, 09:01 AM
That's a bit anti-liberty, don't you think? Based upon what criteria? A test? IQ? Gender? Race? Demographics? Everyone _______ organization deems worthy?

Democracy itself is anti-liberty. So not really.

And o yea...

KEVIN CARSON FTW *bows down*

Icymudpuppy
01-10-2010, 09:09 AM
That's a bit anti-liberty, don't you think? Based upon what criteria? A test? IQ? Gender? Race? Demographics? Everyone _______ organization deems worthy?

Good question. I think you must have something to lose.

Criteria for voting:
1. Must not be on any government assistance.
2. Must not be considered anyone else's dependent for loans or tax based consideration
3. Must have passed a test on the actual verbage of the constitution particularly that related to the powers of the branches of government.
4. Must be legally employed, or the registered owner of a business.

forsmant
01-10-2010, 09:14 AM
I'd take a club to a lot of people. Murderers, rapists, thieves, con men, and fraudsters. No matter how you organize society these unwanted elements of human character will be present. To wish for their end is human but to believe virtue will end evil is naive.

powerofreason
01-10-2010, 10:24 AM
I'd take a club to a lot of people. Murderers, rapists, thieves, con men, and fraudsters. No matter how you organize society these unwanted elements of human character will be present. To wish for their end is human but to believe virtue will end evil is naive.

Indeed. Of course, the crimes of the State far outweigh the crimes of private criminals. Therefore abolishing the State goes a long way toward that lofty goal of the crime free society. I believe that a fully private and libertarian society could make crime so hard to commit, and provide so many disincentives, that the only type of crime that would be commonly committed would be accidental crimes like fender benders, forgetting to pay bills, stuff easily made right. And occasionally you'd get crimes of passion like the wife who shoots the cheating husband. Who would of course have her reputation ruined, be uninsurable, have to sell everything she owns to the husbands family, and would be lucky to find someone to hire her for a pittance. Minus the inevitable wage garnishment, enforced by the husbands insurance company or the arbitration agency. And all the problems caused by her insurance dropping her. Can't go to the mall, can't enter most stores, can only drive on the crappiest of roads, can only live in the crappiest of areas. And oh yea, no one will want to associate with her. Not even her own family, who would receive points off their reputation rating if spotted hanging around or giving aid to such a risky and dangerous character.

kathy88
01-10-2010, 12:24 PM
Good question. I think you must have something to lose.

Criteria for voting:
1. Must not be on any government assistance.
2. Must not be considered anyone else's dependent for loans or tax based consideration
3. Must have passed a test on the actual verbage of the constitution particularly that related to the powers of the branches of government.
4. Must be legally employed, or the registered owner of a business.


So using these guidelines people would not be permitted to vote if they:

1. Are permanently disabled at work and receive SSI benefits.
2. Are college students still being claimed on their parents' income tax.
3. Don't test well.
4. Have enough personal wealth to not need to work and don't care to own a business.

Seriously? Heil.

powerofreason
01-10-2010, 01:56 PM
So using these guidelines people would not be permitted to vote if they:

1. Are permanently disabled at work and receive SSI benefits.
2. Are college students still being claimed on their parents' income tax.
3. Don't test well.
4. Have enough personal wealth to not need to work and don't care to own a business.

Seriously? Heil.

Ha! I knew you were a closet nazi! You let slip your german eh?

Probably sent by Sean Hannity to corrupt this forum with pro-democracy sentiment!

http://thinningtheherd.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/hannity_nazi1.jpg

kahless
01-10-2010, 02:09 PM
Unfortunately LE too many people think they are. So many people walk into that voting booth and vote a straight ticket. Hey, they're on the R ticket, they must be conservative. No one cares enough to do the reserach on each individual race.

To take that one step further: voting that straight ticket since that is what the Foxnews Conservative frauds told them was the the Conservative ticket.

erowe1
01-10-2010, 02:18 PM
Criteria for voting:

4. Must be legally employed, or the registered owner of a business.

Legally employed according to whose law? And a business owner registered with whom?

Icymudpuppy
01-10-2010, 03:14 PM
Legally employed according to whose law? And a business owner registered with whom?

If you intend to vote in the state, you should be legally employed by that state's standards. Run a fly-by-night business, or work for cash under the table. Fine, but if you don't want to participate in the taxes, you don't get a say in how they are spent.

You An/Caps can opt out if you want to.

Icymudpuppy
01-10-2010, 03:21 PM
So using these guidelines people would not be permitted to vote if they:

1. Are permanently disabled at work and receive SSI benefits.
2. Are college students still being claimed on their parents' income tax.
3. Don't test well.
4. Have enough personal wealth to not need to work and don't care to own a business.

Seriously? Heil.

Our founders made it very uncomplicated. Landowning males only. I'm actually being more lenient.

1. SSI would be public assistance. You are now a ward of the state. Guess you should have invested in your brain so you would have a fall back career.
2. Exactly. Dependent of your parents. They get to vote, you don't. Show me you can support yourself, and you now can have a say in our economy.
3. That's a cop out for people who have no dedication. Anybody can pass a simple multiple choice test on the constitution. Thousands of legal immigrants do it for their citizenship every day.
4. Not contributing, no say. I really don't think Paris Hilton should be voting, do you?