reply to post by whatukno
Ah, we meet again, on the fields of battle!
For Great Justice! Move ZiG!
But on the whole, conservatives aren't for small government, they are all for government intrusion into peoples lives all the time.
This is where political and moral conservatism conflict, in many respects. It's an issue I've highlighted, before. The political conservative is
against bans on abortion and gay marriage, for example. The moral conservative is opposed to abortion and gay marriage. The two are not mutually
exclusive - but a lot of people lack control and the ability to think logically, and therefor allow a dislike of one thing or another govern their
Typical of you. You left your brain back on the index page.
While this is a hot-button issue recently, the issue has been public-sector unions - Unions that represent government workers who, effectively, enter
into a contract with the people represented by that government employing them. This is a critical difference between public-sector and private
unions. These unions organize for wages and benefits that come at the tax-payer expense without representation ("taxation without representation"
... sound familiar?). They also fund campaigns and hire lobbyists. This, in effect, turns public sector unions into a cartel funded by the tax payer
but sheltered from actions by the tax-payers' representatives.
That is considerably different from a private sector union.
Now, you can talk about the issue of right-to-work versus non right-to-work... and there are considerably different views on it that don't break up
too evenly along ideological divides. It really depends upon whether you intend to protect the right of the individual (I should not be forced to
join a union - nor should large unions be able to force smaller businesses into various agreements that favor the union over the business) - or the
right of business (a business should not be restricted from forming employment agreements with unions).
The Libertarian Party, notably, has been divided on the topic.
Personally, I'm more of the opinion that the laws should be written to protect the right of the worker and small businesses but only so as to provide
an expedite for filing suit against a union (as a worker or small business) for 'strong arm' tactics and make such intimidating tactics illegal.
Rights of Religions other than Christianity
I'm not sure where you pulled this from.
What about them? I don't believe in providing someone a standard of living. That would be -not- giving them money simply because they don't have
an arbitrarily established income.... not interfering in their life. I'm not completely opposed to government aid programs - but for productive
things (like grants for schooling - a hell of a lot better than paying people more money for popping out another kid when they can't afford the ones
they already have).
Immigrants (legal or not, to conservatives they are all illegal if they speak Spanish)
Hablamos Engles en los Estados Unidos.
That said - my family has a lot of Germanic roots. Mine, in particular, came over back in the early 1900s and set up a hardware store and sheet-metal
shop. They even did some work for the St. Louis arch, back when it was constructed.
Nothing wrong with immigrants.
However, my ancestors didn't get to complain that all of the legal documents were in English. Nor did they get to collect a check from their mailbox
because they miraculously (here legally or not) qualified for some "free money" from the government. They also didn't get to drop into the
hospital for various treatments and procedures while skipping out on payment.
Doesn't matter if you're a legal immigrant or your ancestors sat down at the "first thanksgiving" to welcome the new faces to the land - that
stuff just ain't right.
If anything, Obama has been gun owners best friend!
I think you've horribly misread the data.
Obama has continually supported restrictions on firearms. This is a very publicly known fact, and was a point during his campaign. When he came to
office, he was a member of the Democrat party. This party is notorious for supporting firearm regulations and restrictions, and also had control of
both the House and Senate.
It was feared that legislation would be put forward and signed into law that would make firearms and/or ammunition far more restricted. It's much
like how the stores around here were devoid of de-icing spray and snow shovels as the "2011 Snowpocalypse" bore down on this area.
When you think you may just have to use something, you tend to be far more willing to buy it.
What was the Republican solution to this nations health care crisis? Oh yea, NOTHING! They wanted States to deal with the issue,
This is, actually, a sensible solution that the Constitution mandates. The current system of federalized welfare funding is unconstitutional and
those involved in prolonging it are guilty of treason and subject to execution.
but states WON'T deal with the issue,
No, they have dealt with the issue. They do not have the revenue to make it happen, and the federal government can no longer provide the funding
necessary to continue (though this is due to critical budgetary deficits rather than issues of constitutional law).
No funding - no program. That's how the issue has been dealt with. The population and industry cannot support the necessary tax rate to fund such
hideously contrived programs, and states are already spending into their own deficits.
therefore the Federal Government had to take it up.
No, it really didn't. This country got along quite well before things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
Guess that Alan Grayson was right, the GOP Health Care Plan: Don't Get Sick, and if you do get sick, Die Quickly.
God Forbid you join a group plan through your place of employment or prioritize your spending so as to be able to seek other options (group policies
are also available through local representatives not affiliated with any company).
Oh because corporations are so good at that?
When the government can figure out how to run something so simple as a pay system, I'll open the floor to a discussion about the competency of
government regulation. Until then, DFAS needs to figure out that we don't play musical ranks - I don't go from being payed as an E-5 one month to
an E-3 the next and an E-7 the following.
Examples of government regulation: As heavily regulated as the auto industry is in America - it took government investigators nearly a year to
investigate claims of "unintended acceleration." Isn't regulation supposed to prevent such industry oversights and defects? If it isn't, then
how is it any more effective at regulating businesses than the power of citizens to file class-action lawsuits in the event of negligence?
So, this is the kind of water you want to drink? Is that acceptable to you? Must be, you must like ignitable drinking water.
Try getting some facts, first.
When Benjamin Grumbles was assistant administrator for water at the Environmental Protection Agency in the George W. Bush administration, he
oversaw the release of a 2004 EPA report that determined that hydraulic fracturing was safe for drinking water. Then he watched as Congress used those
findings to bolster the case for passing a law that prohibited the EPA from regulating fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The career employees reviewing the report were quite comfortable with the integrity and product of that commissioned report. So, they recommended
to me that hydraulic fracturing was not the type of threat that should be as high a priority as other types of threats to drinking water supplies.
They took great offense to some of the other accusations that were made that the commission was biased in some way.
It wasn't meant to be a bill of health saying 'well, this practice is fine. Exempt it in all respects from any regulation.' I'm sure that
wasn't the intent of the panel of experts, and EPA never viewed it that way. That's one reason why we were urging Congress to say 'look, if you are
going to issue an exemption, ensure that it is not perpetual.'
In the process of doing anything - there are risks. You, generally, don't learn just how unsafe something is or can be until something horrible
happens beyond what you expect as a reasonable hazard. While some things are common-sense (fast moving cars will probably hurt people if they happen
to get hit... gasoline is highly flammable... that sort of stuff), others are part of complex or nearly impossible to foresee mishaps.
When you encounter such events - that's when you stop and reconsider what you are doing and how to prevent it from happening again. It's part of
life. There are risks in everything, and sometimes you under-estimate the risk posed.