Comments on: Rachel Maddow Calls Out The Republicans On Their Big Government Agenda

By: drklassen

drklassen — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:17:33 +0000

Yes, the abortion issue *can* be posited as “save the babies”; although that argument would hold a LOT more water if they only spent half as much energy on keeping them alive once they are born.

And taking that stance STILL requires a HUGE government intervention as one would have to monitor every single pregnancy (while, ironically, only paying for the monitoring, not the pregnancy itself). Every miscarriage would have to be investigated as a possible homicide; ever action a woman takes would have to be government approved for the fetus health—no smoking or drinking and what about diet?!

And you don’t address the USA-PATRIOT act intrusions…

What do you think? 0 0

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:31:23 +0000

RON PAUL 2012!!!

What do you think? 0 0

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:32:50 +0000

@Michael,

—Even if that rationale can be used to support their radical behaviour on abortion, how does it explain the attacks on gay marriage, the attacks on Muslim mosques,—

“Radical” is just your smear adjective, it’s not an objective quality of the position.

Any way, Maddow’s segment was about abortion. I am not referring to any other charges against Republicans alleging they support big government.

I will say though that government recognizing any form of marriage is an extension of government power, not a limitation on government power. The most limited government position is government not recognizing any marriage form at all. Those who want official recognition of same-sex or incest relationships as ‘marriage’ are calling for larger government than those who want it confined to non-consanguineous opposite sex relationships.

Any way, this is your attempt to deflect from my point that I’ve played into. The main point, again, is that Maddow is being dishonest.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Shiva (Moderator)

Shiva (Moderator) — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:12:15 +0000

Amen Tiera

What do you think? 0 0

By: Michael Wong

Michael Wong — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:32:58 +0000

I love the way “Mike” above says that “limited government” means government should only intervene to stop violence between individuals. Even if that rationale can be used to support their radical behaviour on abortion, how does it explain the attacks on gay marriage, the attacks on Muslim mosques, the “Ten Commandments in the courthouse” nonsense, the public prayer nonsense, the “faith based charities” nonsense, the “no gays in the military” nonsense, or the police-state Patriot Act, or the farm subsidies, or the enormous expansion of the military even though the nation is not under any threat of invasion, or dozens of overlapping federal agencies being created in the name of homeland security? Oh wait, I forgot, all of that is just an “appeal to emotion” so “Mike” doesn’t have to refute any of it, right?

What do you think? 0 0