GOP Politics when Less Government is More

GOP Politics when Less Government actually means More Government

Known for poignant soap box oratory and campaign promises chocked full of quotes from the constitution and “anti government” patriots it seems the GOP and more recently their bully buddies in the Tea Party have ALWAYS clung to the notion of promoting less government intrusion in the personal lives of everyday Americans.

They love to quote their favorite immortal idol Ronald Reagan who famously said: “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem. ...” They also love citing the Declaration of Independence with the oft quoted “All men are created equal” but if you happen to be a female in America, too bad.

They're ACTUALLY imposing INCREASED government intrusion into the lives of millions of everyday Americans with their latest blitz on women’s reproductive rights. Just a few of the numerous bills and proposed legislation topping their agenda when those who voted them into power were promised Jobs / Economy as top priority. Pure hypocrisy. Can’t wait to see how our extreme right members will justify this blatant contradiction. ( I strived to provide neutral sources.)

GOP Anti-Abortion Bill Introduced In House

Abortion Interjected Into Health Care Reform Repeal. Republicans are turning to abortion as a key issue to rally their base as they attempt to replace the Democrats' health reform law.

www.kaiserhealthnews.org...

Georgia Republican’s anti-abortion bill would require investigations of miscarriages

The Congressman who wants to redefine rape victims as “accusers” now wants investigations into miscarriages. Shouldn’t that be considered wasteful, unnecessary, Government spending?

www.addictinginfo.org...

Sen. Murray Blasts Republican Anti-Abortion Funding Bills

A presidential executive order already bars funding for abortions under the law, except in cases of rape or incest, but house Republicans say it's not enough.

www.kirotv.com...

Abortion is not one of those issues which can be purely black and white considering that both points of view constitute a legitimate argument. Believing that a woman has the right to make the decisions regarding her own body and reproductive system is a freedom many argue all women have, however there are other who pose a serious argument against that assertion, one also based on human rights.

If you subscribe to the argument that a child has rights, separate to that of its mother, then to allow the practice of unnecessary abortion would constitute a serious violation of that being’s rights, would it not? That is why even those who espouse Libertarian views have been hung up on this issue since it is one of deep moral and philosophical division.

To take the argument that abortion is a violation of a child’s rights then allowing abortion would be legalized murder, which according to every human moral and ethic code should not be legal. Thus abortion would constitute a blatant violation of that child’s rights. But the other argument is also valid, since it is a baby inside the woman’s body and has yet to develop a fully functioning nervous system and thought process then how is it violating that child’s rights? Rather it would then be violating the personal rights of the woman.

It is not a simple issue to discard one way or the other, both sides have a valid viewpoint.

reply to post by Misoir


I completely agree with everything you say, but I think that is also why we should err on the side of women's rights. Essentially, someone's rights are going to be violated. However, we collectively KNOW the woman's rights would be violated by forcing her to carry to term a child she does not want (for the sake of this thread we should not introduce the dilemma of the father's rights), but we do not KNOW if the fetus has rights. If it is a conscious, self-aware being. In my opinion and from a pragmatic point of view, it is beneficial to allow the woman her rights.

reply to post by Misoir


Odd, not A SINGLE comment about IMPOSING GOVERNMENT INTRUSION, just ideological holier than thou psycho babble. Sure Abortion s a complex issue, but I was hoping for someone to address the hypocrisy of striping away freedoms as opposed to empowering them. Typical. :shk:

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by Misoir

 

Odd, not A SINGLE comment about IMPOSING GOVERNMENT INTRUSION

I assumed from what I had posted you could easily draw a conclusion on my response in regards to privacy on this issue.

, just ideological holier than thou psycho babble.

Where once did I invoke any 'holy speak' into my post or my ideology on the subject? I gave the two positions as I seen them, not my opinion.

Sure Abortion s a complex issue, but I was hoping for someone to address the hypocrisy of striping away freedoms as opposed to empowering them. Typical. :shk:

I did address it, to some defending the human rights of a child inside a womb is definitely not a violation of a woman's rights because their rights are separate. That means the issue of freedom depends on which side of the argument you take.

Quite obviously someone did not thoroughly read my post or I would have no reason to make this post. :shk:

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by Misoir

 

Odd, not A SINGLE comment about IMPOSING GOVERNMENT INTRUSION, just ideological holier than thou psycho babble. Sure Abortion s a complex issue, but I was hoping for someone to address the hypocrisy of striping away freedoms as opposed to empowering them. Typical. :shk:

I don't think you read Misoir's post, as his arguments were at the very center of the controversy. I encourage you to read, and then reread it thoroughly, because he was spot on.

The issue should be "when does a fetus become a person?" Is it when it has fingers? Is it when it has a brain? Ears? Is it at conception or not until after it is born? The rights of the mother aren't the only ones to consider.

/TOA

reply to post by Misoir


I interpret your reply as a deflection. Masterful but a deflection nonetheless. By playing it down the middle and focusing on Abortion issue you fail to acknowledge the simple premise of the thread. That the GOP promises one thing but delivers (no pun) another. I could have easily chosen a host of other hypocritical flip flops including union busting and depriving striking families from getting food stamps that they are eligible for, removing elected leaders under auspices of budget crisis or defunding vital government programs that provide for and protect American citizens.

But thanks for the elucidation.

Originally posted by The Old American
The issue should be "when does a fetus become a person?"

Scuse me? I read the reply and understand subterfuge when I see it. Perhaps you should read my OP.

This was not meant as an Abortion thread, this is about a political party who makes false promises. But I realize that threads do take on a life of their own on ATS so be it.

God, Guns, and Gays, that's all that drives the GOP agenda. Nothing about the deficits or the endless wars,

I doubt the congresscritters that proposed these legislations have ever actually read the bible.

Originally posted by Misoir
It is not a simple issue to discard one way or the other, both sides have a valid viewpoint.

Exactly.

Especially if you pair the abortion question with the death penalty issue.

Both sides appear to be hypocrites if you do that.

Spare criminals but kill babies from the left's viewpoint.

Spare babies but kill criminals from the right.

The only edge I could give the right's viewpoint is that babies are innocent of anything, while the criminals can be said to not be innocent (by definition).

Still it seems that both sides could agree on either killing everyone, or killing no one.

reply to post by centurion1211


Nice Avatar. 1211. I like.

Why isn't ANYONE addressing the true premise of this thread. That the GOP is striving to IMPOSE MORE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES? As opposed to jumping on the abortion example. C1211 I'd expect YOU of all people to remain on topic as you've scolded me in the past for deflection.

reply to post by centurion1211


Democrats have been in support of the death penalty, Clinton for instance, embraced it. But this is irrelevant because your argument isn't valid from the standpoint that those who oppose abortion on biblical/moral grounds should also oppose the death penalty, for those same reasons. But those in the GOP don't. While those who support a woman's right to choose yet oppose the death penalty are not "sparing" the criminal, as they will still be sentenced to life without parole.

A zygote or a fetus that has not yet developed a brain is hardly a baby, so to refer to this as "killing a baby" is again a misleading argument. By this logic a male kills babies every time he masturbates. What's next laws against masturbation?

If you use the bible as a basis for law you'll have contradictions all over the place.

Why isn't ANYONE addressing the true premise of this thread. That the GOP is striving to IMPOSE MORE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES?

Smug self-righteousness and pandering to christian conservatives while creating more governmental controls, that's our GOP for you.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Smug self-righteousness and pandering to christian conservatives while creating more governmental controls, that's our GOP for you.

I'll give you a big Amen on that one brother.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Okay let me settle this once and for all. The issue at hand as mentioned in the OP was the subsequent violation of personal freedoms which they fought strongly against, yes? Thus making them hypocritical and desecrating their original oath taken before entering office, running on a platform of defending and extending freedoms, is that not what you are arguing?

What was stated in my original post was addressing the issue directly, the question of rights which I intended to make attempt at informing people about how I see the reality of our present situation. You cited abortion in all the links provided in your OP, correct? Well the issue then was that the GOP was invading a person’s freedoms through the coercive act of abrogating their original premise of more freedom by violating the privacy and civil liberties of a female and her reproductive rights.

My intention was to elaborate to you, the OP, that whether this abortion issue actually qualifies as undermining the freedom they pledged to extend and defend. From the viewpoint of social conservatives abortion is a violation of a child’s right, thus to extend the hand of government to protect the rights of the child they are doing what they perceive is the correct thing according to the rule of murder is a crime. Since then abortion classifies as murder to them, defending the unborn from the violation of its rights by the mother is inevitably a duty of government.

However, since you are pro-choice the understanding of what I am discussing may be a bit blurry. I am not trying to avoid the question you are asking in the OP rather my attempt was at answering it with elaboration. No, it was not a deflection of the original intent of this thread and no I am not trying to defend the GOP on this issue, if it were the Democrats placed in this same position it would be hypocritical of me not to say the exact same thing.

If the proper overview of my original post was taken and not from the standpoint of a partisan dislike of me and my posts then it would be made abundantly clear to you what I was arguing. To simplify my standpoint; Whether or not abortion constitutes a violation of individual freedom, thus a hypocritical contravention of their original statements, is difficult to determine sine it relies upon the interpretation of whether a fetus has rights separate of the mother or not.

A diversion, deflection, and digression, my original post was not, my hope is that since you failed to recognize the original intent of my first post it was a mere aberration on your part.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Smug self-righteousness and pandering to christian conservatives while creating more governmental controls, that's our GOP for you.

Unfortunately what you state is the undeniable truth since the GOP has turned to Christian Fundamentalism as a way of vote collecting, an unintended consequence of the Southern Strategy. The days of Eisenhower, Coolidge, and Taft are long gone, at least for now, and the time of Pat Robertson, George W. Bush, and Sarah Palin are presently and for the past 30 years in our national political discourse. Hopefully they will soon be isolated and chased out, maybe the Democrats can reclaim their Southern blood, and maybe it has already begun since William Kristol already classifies Obama as a “born-again Neocon”.

What about the freedom and rights of the developing human?
Or are their rights secondary? Pity.

reply to post by kinda kurious


When it comes to taking of freedom, is any party better than the other??
Both parties take away more freedom.
They just start with different freedoms knowing the other party once in will take the rest..

There are NO parties IMO...

Oh and soon there will be no freedoms left to take.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by The Old American
The issue should be "when does a fetus become a person?"

Scuse me? I read the reply and understand subterfuge when I see it. Perhaps you should read my OP.

This was not meant as an Abortion thread, this is about a political party who makes false promises. But I realize that threads do take on a life of their own on ATS so be it.

Then perhaps you should've made a thread with multiple instances of said false promises, instead of a thread with none.

/TOA

Of course the GOP is for more government intrusion into the lives of the people.

The GOP believes that the government's prime purpose is to legislate morality on the masses as a Theocracy. And as the Theocracy that the GOP believes the United States is, a woman's womb is property of the state and not the individual.

Can't have someone making the choice themselves, the Theocracy must make that choice for women.

Since NO ONE on the right is addressing the over reaching GOP expansion of government, this should stoke the fire. As I mentioned, I could have chosen a number of other examples where the GOP promises one thing and yet their actions are totally opposite. Naturally the party that believes it has a monopoly on morals has trounced on the abortion issue as they believe they are doing “GOD’s work.” Here’s an excellent commentary on the GOP’s longstanding history of “pole shift” without focusing on the third rail of abortion.

The GOP's "small government" tea party fraud

There's a major political fraud underway:  the GOP is once again donning their libertarian, limited-government masks in order to re-invent itself and, more important, to co-opt the energy and passion of the Ron-Paul-faction that spawned and sustains the "tea party" movement.  The Party that spat contempt at Paul during the Bush years and was diametrically opposed to most of his platform now pretends to share his views.

The Right is petrified that this fraud will be exposed and is thus bending over backwards to sustain the myth.

This is what Republicans always do.  When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm.  Deficit spending and the national debt skyrocket.  The National Security State is bloated beyond description through wars and occupations, while no limits are tolerated on the Surveillance State.  Then, when out of power, they suddenly pretend to re-discover their "small government principles." 

But that GOP limited government rhetoric is simply never matched by that Party's conduct, especially when they wield power.  The very idea that a political party dominated by neocons, warmongers, surveillance fetishists, and privacy-hating social conservatives will be a party of "limited government" is absurd on its face. 

SOURCE

In short: Government is EVIL unless it advances your hidden agenda.