Phatscotty wrote: thegreekdog wrote: Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Gov't is too big, to expsensive, with compounding interest, period.
If you want to look for cuts, ignore the people who try to mock other with the roads and bridges bit. Challenge them to start at mesquito control, humvees for federal parks, and publicly funded art projects. And who can leave out light rail?
And get them out of our bedrooms.
Why be consistent?
You're just like Player, who has driven me crazy with her inconsistencies lately.
On the one hand, you're all for freedom and getting the government out of something when it's something you don't want the government to be in. And to drive home your argument, you use tenets from the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.
On the other hand, when it's something like abortion or gay marriage, you're all about government intervention and ignore any founding documents or any other logical link between government intervention and freedom.
You argue out of both sides of your mouth and that's not only stupid, it's dishonest. If you're going to argue about less government regulation of business while arguing against gay marriage and abortion, as far as I'm concerned you're prohibited from invoking the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, or any other historical or modern interpretations thereof. Hypocrisy doesn't work here. Sorry little buddy.