Repukes want government that's big enough to oppress you, yet small enough to neglect you

[derby378]

Prove me wrong, FReepers! Discuss!

[Horse with no Name]

1. Damn Derby

That is ABSOLUTELY it in a nutshell.

[Bobbie Jo]

2. Nailed it! n/t

[derby378]

3. Thanks, guys

Maybe I should work it into a bumper sticker and "stick it" to the Bushistas.

[distantearlywarning]

4. Wow, that's true.

Never thought about it exactly that way before, but you hit the nail right on the head. Somebody should make that into a slogan or a sticker or something.

[twilight_sailing]

5. Well put.

[Chiyo-chichi]

6. Yes, well said.

[AZDesertRat]

7. I'm no Republican...

but I agree with the true "Republican" ideal of small government. Money pits like the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Treasury (minus the US Mint and Engraving and Printing) should be axed. And some serious cutbacks need to be made to the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor and Justice.

[Horse with no Name]

9. Did you realize you were joining a progressive message board?

In a nutshell you just advocated cutting out the backbone of the Democratic party (at least when they are administered correctly).

[AZDesertRat]

10. Yes I did.

I guess I missed the small print where it said that you had to be a Democrat to be Progressive.

[Horse with no Name]

11. But this IS "Democratic Underground"

:eyes:

[AZDesertRat]

12. What is "Democratic"...

From Merriam-Websters:

Main Entry: dem·o·crat·ic
Pronunciation: "de-m&-'kra-tik
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy
2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the United States evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism
3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people <democratic art>
4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish

Well, I definitely agree with number 1. I agree with the 19th century Democrats of number 2. I really like the "available aspect" of number 3. Number 4, I favor social equality as long as it stays in the social and political arenas, i.e all people are created equal and everyone in a democratic form of government is allowed his or her opinion. I'm not a believer in government welfare or large Federal bureacracy

[magellan]

14. How do you feel about corporate welfare

...and tax cuts that only benefit the top 1% of the people? How about the "free market"?

[alittlelark]

20. I don't think that ? will be answered by AZRat....

justa' guess...:eyes:

[magellan]

21. Drats

And I was willing to play with my claws in for a little while, too. :)

[More Than A Feeling]

16. So you are knee-jerk anti-government huh?

Guess with the government out of the way, the corporations will have an even easier time getting their way, and there will be nowhere to go but hat in hand to the churches.

Me? I believe in a government of, by, and for all the people. Not a government of, by, and for the corporations or the churches. It's called democracy.

[Gabi Hayes]

17. knee-jerk off? (this board?)

I guess it forgot to mention making any cuts in the DOD budget

innocent mistake, yes?

[AZDesertRat]

22. Testy...

No, I don't believe in corporate welfare. I don't believe the Federal government has the right, nor the privilege, to give away tax money to any entity, corporate or private. I believe in government for the People, by the People, but the People need to be self-reliant. I grew up in a crappy neighborhood in a typical Rust Belt factory town where one in every four people was on welfare. My old man refused to accept it even when we could've qualified for it because he believed that government hand outs made people less inclined to actually function in society and more inclined to allow the State to dictate their lives and I believe he was correct, from seeing it first hand.
I see a nation that is so steeped in debt and wastes so much money on bogus programs and 100 times redundant levels of bureacracy that it can barely function in a reasonable manner. I would love to see a bill passed making it illegal for any corporate lobbying of any kind. I'd love to see the Federal agencies I listed above be severly reigned in if not erased all together so that we wouldn't just get tax cuts for the top 1% of the people, we could drop a large majority of taxes all together and let people take more of their money home... instead of spending it on a bloated and ineffective Federal leviathan. I'd like to see the States and the People stand up and take back the power that they've been enshrined with by the Tenth Amendment as opposed to the current way in which they approach Washington D.C with the "Please sir, may I have some more" attitude.
I'm pro gun rights but don't care if gay people want to get married. To each his own and the Federal government, as I've stated before, should deliver the mail and defend the borders and basically stay out of the People's business until the People decide they can meddle in their affairs.
Do I think Bush and his ilk are jackasses? You bet.
Do I think we should've never gone into Iraq? Yep.
Do I think the Republican party as we know it is a disaster? Not a doubt.

Now, I did leave off the DoD because I believe that a strong military and it's maintenance is the duty of any Government of any Sovereign nation. Nor do I believe that the DoD and the military are somehow "evil" by their very existence. The Defense Department has asked for what, a couple trillion dollars, for the next fiscal year. It's not their fault. They are trying to do the job that the duly elected civilian government ordered them to do. If there was no conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, no perpetual bases to maintain in Korea, no money being earmarked for maintenance and upkeep in Europe the DoD budget would've been much, much, much smaller. We saw it happen during Clinton's era, no? Think about the millions of American dollars being spent to keep these places active and up to date, think of the millions being spent to train, equip and transport service members to do the jobs that are required at those bases all over the world. Now imagine if all that money was distributed among the American people, because those bases no longer sucked up American dollars, and the military no longer had a need to train enough men and women to fill all those vacancies, and the taxes that were levied on us to help support them no longer existed... that would be better than any welfare program that could ever be dreamed up short of the Socialist/Communist scenario that is really an anti-thesis to everything that this country was founded on.
We also should remember that this was a country born of bloodshed and that it may, from time to time, take a little bit of bloodshed to preserve it. Thinking anything else is a pie in the sky dream.
So, just because I don't advocate large government or social welfare doesn't mean I'm not "progressive". I simply believe that we, as AMERICANS, not hyphenated Americans, but as AMERICANS need to take back what is rightfully ours and readjust the balance so that the Government does, in fact, work for us and our best interests. Not as a Nanny State and not as a Police State, but as a State that leaves every single American alone to become what he or she may become, regardless of race, sexual orientation or any other qualifier that you want to use to put people in neat little categories.

[alittlelark]

25. You are not a Republican! A Libertarian or Anarchist perhaps...

But certainly NOT a Republican.

[Midlodemocrat]

13. Republican-progressive? Talk about an oxymoron.

DU is for democrats. Of all kinds.

[alittlelark]

18. I know you're "no Republican"

REAL Republicans would not support your position.

The ? is "what are you"?

[Raksha]

28. Sounds like a libertarian to me. Definitely not a Republican,

but probably not a Democrat either.

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. You sure sound like a repukelican

You can say you are not one all you want but your words paint a different picture.

[Phredicles]

8. Bumper sticker material!

:thumbsup:

[Horse with no Name]

15. How bout some more recs?

This is great.

[TransitJohn]

19. K&R

:hi:

[mindwalker_i]

23. I'm not a freeper, but I will respectfully disagree

The current set of Repubs, or at least the ones I hear about the most, talk about all the things that Repubs always talk about: small government, fiscal responsibility, etc. These are really just packaging. The smaller government thing gets used specifically when "they" are referring to regulation of businesses, or when they are talking about social programs. You know, things that help actual people are part of "big government." As for fiscal responsibility, that's just a joke. The term is used again to cut programs that help actual people. When it comes to making death-star sized swimming pools full of money for corporate friends/donors to wallow in, fiscal responsibility is replaced by "trickle down" economics.

When it comes to your pants, Repubs are all for bigger government, at least to the point of using it to lock in their base. I have to admit, they haven't actually passed a lot of legislation in this area but they keep at least pretending to try. I don't believe they intend specifically to be oppressive, it just ends up that way. "We need more laws against those non-christian people because it's ruining the country." It's really for our own good, in their minds, even though it's actually fascist. The people actually in power don't believe it's for our own good, they know better. It's simply a political tool.

As for being just small enough not to help, government definitely is not too small. It's just that all the effort and funds need to be put toward other things like wars. And the wars are political abstractions too, just a means of diverting attention of the people, as well as a way to get the cash to the corporations. All the talk about getting people to take responsibility for themselves and not live off welfare is a cloak for the real purposes of cutting social programs. People without a decent education and people who are too poor to spend any time on politics are a lot easier to control.

So in a nutshell, the current Repubs are evil. Democrats have been there in the past but it's harder to bend the democratic platform to hurt people as much as the repub platform.

-mwalker

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

24. Wow, I was ready to read a long essay, but none needed

That's it in a nutshell.

K&R

[Chulanowa]

26. Short and simple. Just like a conservative's intellect

Congrats on nailing it so easily :)

[Raksha]

27. Wow, what a GREAT subject line!

It would make a great bumpersticker too.

[Doondoo]

29. K&R

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. K&R baby!

You pretty much nailed it.

[ChickMagic]

32. So true!

You nailed it, babe!

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. Exactly right!