Republican's are for smaller government, yet......

Want to take away a woman's right to choose. Fighting every aspect of it, from a day after pill, to a potential life saving late term abortion.

Want to play god with the death penalty, even after numerous instances of wrongful deaths have been established.

Support racial profiling, harrassing citizens based on appearance

support DUI traffic stops requiring to see license and registration.

support the Patriot act which infringes privacy.

This is "smaller" government?

I just read that somewhere that under Bush, it's grown to it biggest size ever. They've sort of done a flip-flop with the Dems. who always were called the big government Democrats.

just another ruse

That's always been nonsense. The real difference between them is twofold:
1) Dems are willing to raise taxes to pay for programs and take the political consequences. Repubs cut taxes as a pandering move and then spend the money we don't have, anyway.
2) Repubs increase government in the areas where they want control over social issues, and Dems increase gov't in areas where the gov't could improve the social condition.

There is, and never has been, any difference in scope. Only the priorities differ. This is one of the big lies of the right.
The Professor

Who would have guessed during the halcyon days of the Old Republic.

The Old Republic had to be put on the "critical list" before even a fraction of Amerikans begin to remember why we loved it.

Meanwhile the Busheviks are ready with a cyanide syringe...

new dept of homeland security

wanted dept of covert ops

TIA

stop gay men from having sex

stop people from partaking in drug use in their own homes

prayer in school

stop flag burning



they want to control your lives!

I meant to include the foisting of religious ideals upon us as one of my listed items.

Republicans talk about smaller govt and less spending when they run for office, but once theyre there, all they do is increase govt size and massively increase spending. True conservatives should be voting for DEAN in 2004. He is more of a fiscal conservative than ANYONE in the white house.

These are radicals. Not Bush, who is somewhat of an amiable dunce, but the people controlling his actions, whether it be Cheney or Krisol or Rumsfeld or whoever.

Somebody posted a reference to something Kissinger wrote a long time ago, dealing with why the Nazis were able to come to power in Germany. If I remember correctly, Henry's position was that the established political parties had no real grasp of what they were dealing with, convincing themselves that the Nazis were just another political party and that once they were placated they would take their place at the table just like everyone else. Too late the moderates and leftists realized that Hitler wanted the entire table and was willing to kill anyone who got in his way.

Look at what the NeoCons have done since 2000 and see if you can tell me what the difference is, other than they haven't killed anyone directly as of yet?

Hitler actually served in the armed forces during wartime.

do seem to look globally,
and have a deep seated view that their beliefs are "the one true path".

I wonder how many of them have ties to secret societies and so forth.
they do seem sinister....

like they flash an illuminati ring to each other from time to time.

(said in jest...... maybe)

They are only for less government when less government favors their particular personal advantage. In every other way they are for more Government.

They have very little interest, if they have any interest at all, in either the truth or in consistency.

Sun November 30, 2003 11:00 AM ET
By Lori Santos

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading Republican Sen. John McCain on Sunday berated fellow lawmakers for "spending money like a drunken sailor" and said President Bush was also to blame for pushing the nation toward higher interest rates and inflation.

On the "Fox News Sunday" program, McCain lamented the closing actions of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives before recessing for the year, most notably passage of a massive overhaul of the Medicare insurance program for the elderly.

He also decried a $31 billion national energy bill, still pending until at least next year, much of which would fund industry tax breaks.

"The numbers are astonishing," said McCain, an Arizona Republican. "Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor. And I've never known a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination that this Congress has."

It was a rare admonition from a member of Bush's own political party, which hopes to benefit from a series of wins this year in the U.S. Congress -- which in addition to the first-ever Medicare prescription drug benefit, included more tax relief, funds to rebuild Iraq and a law to restrict abortion.
…
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3911904
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=245868

The embarrassing GOP
Smaller government, less spending? That's a joke

By Cal Thomas | Commentary
Posted November 29, 2003

The just concluded (thankfully) Congress is an embarrassment to itself and everyone who favors smaller government. This Republican Congress, in addition to increasing spending on entitlements and expanding big government -- like the Democrats they once criticized -- also dished out $95 billion in tax breaks and pork-barrel projects.

The Heritage Foundation's Brian M. Riedl says mandatory government spending will reach 11.1 percent of GDP this year, a record high, and non-defense discretionary spending in 2003 will amount to 3.9 percent of GDP for the first time since 1985. Riedl also predicts taxes will inevitably have to be raised to pay for it all. What politician wants to be demagogued about cutting "essential services"?

The Republican "oath" says, "I believe that the proper function of government is to do for the people those things that have to be done but cannot be done, or cannot be done as well, by individuals, and that the most effective government is government closest to the people." Would some lawyer please sue the Republican National Committee for violating truth-in-labeling laws?

Smaller government and less spending? That's a joke. Eleven years ago, Newt Gingrich, who would soon become Speaker of the House, blasted Democrats for seeing "no contradiction between adding a billion and a half dollars in pork-barrel (spending) for the politicians in their big-city machines and voting for a balanced budget amendment." Now that Republicans are doing precisely what Democrats did when they were in the majority, what shall we call these overspending Republicans? Hypocrites? Liars?

The Wall Street Journal editorialized (Nov. 24): "The Republican Congress is turning into something of an embarrassment, if not a crackup." Who is going to pay for all of this stuff? Who will pay for the new prescription-drug benefit that will not even be means-tested? There are no cost controls in this bill. Without them, congressional spending will be out of control.
…
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edp-thomas112903,1,1653431.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=793385

They don't mind a huge, intrusive bureaucracy if it is doing Gawd's will.

The record is clear though. Every neocon administration (Reagan Bush the First and Bush the Lesser) has drastically grown the federal government. It gets larger, costlier and much more intrusive every time one of these troglodytes seizes power.