More Big Government From Conservatives

Republicans who want the government to be involved in all of the private decisions individuals make in their lives, attached a provision to the port security bill that President Bush signed today the prohibits people from using credit cards, checks, and electronic funds transfers for online gaming. 

Just one more way Big Government Republicans want to control every aspect of the way the American people live their lives.  Private choices made by individuals in the privacy of their own homes do not matter any more to these guys. Big Government should be involved in making the decisions as to what is appropriate entertainment for people.

32 comments

  1. defnotrep says:

    That’s amazing. How would one play on-line then?

    Since Abramhoff is gone and not pitting gambling casinos against each other for money,
    the SO-CALLED CONSERVATIVES..NOT..must have done it because they are such good Christians.

    Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. They make me sick. Don’t forget Terry Schiavo…another fiasco brought to you by so-called Conservative Christians.

    The on-line gambling deal will have major repercussions for these guys. The American people are getting fed up. They definitely will lose the House this time and probably the Senate.

  2. Donkey Kong says:

    The problem with these folk is that they are uninformed “conservative” Christians, not that they are Christian. If Christians were appropriately taught from the pulpit and in the classroom, they would understand the peril of turning government into a classroom nun with a ruler.

    This is pathetic. I want the GOP to retain power, but I would love to see an intraparty revolution take place and us finally send some REAL conservatives to the hill. Otherwise, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is not in how much government interferes with citizens but where it interferes.

  3. Mike says:

    I really hate agreeing with Decaturguy, but concept of personal responsibility is lost on W and our Congress.

    Hey Donkey–Excellent point made in your last sentence.

  4. atlantaman says:

    I don’t know why folks would expect to be able to gamble on their computers at home when they can’t gamble anywhere else (expect for a few designated areas like Las Vegas and every gas station in Georgia). The whole “private choices by individuals in the privacy of their homes” argument is not a Republican one, but a Libertarian one. If someone smokes crack cocaine in the “privacy of their home” is that okay…a Libertarian would say yes and a Republican would say no.

    The irony is the new on-line gambling law is virtually unenforceable.

    I don’t really have a problem with some 45 year old fool blowing his life savings on an internet gambling site. What I do have a problem with is the same fool, when he’s 70, coming to me/the government with his hand out saying, “I ain’t got no money.” Something tells me I would be the one called cold-hearted and callous when I inquired about his life savings plan and the choices he made when he was younger.

    Being a true Libertarian is an all or nothing proposition, which is why it’s different then being a Republican. You can’t say you believe in personal responsibility and no government interference, but then expect the government to provide a safety net when hundreds of thousands of idiots screw their lives up.

    “The on-line gambling deal will have major repercussions for these guys. The American people are getting fed up. They definitely will lose the House this time and probably the Senate.”

    The on-line gambling ban will have no repercussions for the elected officials. The Republicans could very well lose the House and the Senate, but it will not because of the on-line gambline ban. If your premise is correct then we should be seeing campaign ads from Barrow and Marshall in the very near future discussing their support of on-line gambling, personal responsiblity, freedom and the American way.

  5. defnotrep says:

    No Atlantaman the politicians won’t run ads but it’s just one more thing regular people will notice and talk about that the Repubs have involved themselves in instead of dealing with real issues effecting our country. They did this to try an energize their base come November.

  6. atlantaman says:

    To some extent I agree with you in that the GOP seems to have lost its way. I do think the anti-gambling law is a non-issue, although it may be indicative of their lack of priorities (like illegal immigration).

    If you take away abortion and the war in Iraq, we’re basically more Democrat then the Democrats. I know the rhetoric likes to portray the Republicans as the fiscal Conservatives and the Democrats as more caring, but under Republicans non-military spending (in every single catagory) over the last 6 years is up massively compared to the Clinton years. If you just look at the amount of money dedicated to social programs, highways, pork, etc. versus under Clinton you would have to say the Republicans are the more caring Party (kneejerk and less responsible).

    It was Jerry Seinfield who regarding professional baseball said, “You’re not rooting for a team. You’re rooting for a uniform!” Sometimes I feel that way about our national politicians, their actions and records are irrelevant – were just rooting for the uniforms.

  7. defnotrep says:

    I agree with you atlantaman. Neither side of the isle has asked the tough questions or stood up on the issues until the public said enough….ie immigration.

    The reason I blog is because I think discussion helps on all the issues. I just wish all sides, including politicians and bloggers, would stick to the issues and do away with the personal attacks.

    Sometimes I fail to do this myself but at least I try and it’s not my first reaction to do.

  8. Chris says:

    “Otherwise, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is not in how much government interferes with citizens but where it interferes.”

    I’d say the only difference is which batches of special interests get the spoils of a Trillion dollar budget, and the “where it interferes” is just a smoke screen to please each side’s less educated base.

  9. Bill Simon says:

    DecaturGuy,

    While you have some very valid points, the fact of the matter is that if Democrats were in charge, they’d try to figure out a way to capture that money that people gamble with through some tax schemes of some sort. You Dems would figure that if people have free money to gamble with, that’s money that belongs in their hands.

    The GOP seeks to prohibit things, while the Democrats would seek to tax the crap out of things. Both parties have the goal of destroying liberty but from different directions.

  10. David says:

    I agree that the difference between dems and repubs is razor thin and that’s too bad.

    The only real difference I see is how they handle national security issues.

    It’s like the famous quote that basically says that once the people in a democracy learn that they can vote themselves largess from the federal treasury in the form of gov’t givaways, we’re toast.

    The people out there are always gonna vote for the party that will promise them more of our money.

    As far as the 70 year old guy who gambled all his money away and now wants mine, well, there’s never an iceflow and a polar bear around when you need one!

  11. defnotrep says:

    I think it’s time for a new party. I don’t think Libertarian is the answer tho.

    It seems like the extreme right and left of both parties control the nominating processes. Consequently, we don’t get candidates that are progressives on social issues and fiscal
    conservatives on tax/spending issues.

    Essentially we don’t get the best people. Johnny Isakson somehow managed to slip by the religious right….which I thought was amazing.

  12. Jeff Emanuel says:

    defnotrep: that doesn’t make sense. The “extreme right…control[s] the nominating process,” but “we don’t get candidates that are…fiscal
    conservatives on tax/spending issues.” Eh? One doesn’t logically lead to the other — if moderates control the nomination, then we don’t get conservatives.

  13. Jace Walden says:

    Decaturguy is 100% right. There is nothing “conservative” about banning online gambling.

    The basis of economic liberty is that people can spend their money better than the government. In fact, Bush has said as much on a number of occasions. This is big-goverment bullshit.

    I have an open question for anyone who believes in small government. How can you possibly be a Bush supporter OR a supporter of the 109th Congress? Both are responsible for the largest expansion of the Federal Bureaucracy in U.S. History…and then they pull stupid shit like this.

    Embarassing to say the least.

  14. defnotrep says:

    It makes perfect sense jeff emanuel.

    The extreme Christian right controls the nomination for the Repubs.

    The extreme Libertal left controls the nomination for the Demos.

    Consequently, we don’t get social moderates from the Repubs.

    And we don’t get fiscal moderates from the Demos.

    Clear enough for you. lol

    ie Sam Nunn or Everett Dirksen

  15. RuralDem says:

    I think defnotrep has it right with the above statement. We need true fiscal/social moderates in both parties. Unfortunately both sides are blinded and the partisanship between them does nothing but make matters worse.

    We’re fortunate in Georgia to still have moderate and reasonable politicians representing us. Well, at least we have one, Congressman Jim Marshall.

  16. Chris says:

    I’m going to disagree with the statement that the liberal left is responsible for nominating the Dem candidates. If we had extremists on opposite sides of the aisle making the nominations, you’d see CONTRAST, starkly, between the two candidates. I see nothing but bland accusatory rhetoric coming from both sides while they both vote for everything Bush ever asked for.

  17. defnotrep says:

    Chris,

    You make a good point. This is just a personal opinion on my part, not saying I’m totally correct but I think has some merit.

    After they get the nomination, they move more to the center for the independent vote.

    The candidates stick with safe issues. …education, crime, health care.

    For instance, you never hear about Choice as an issue. The candidates don’t want to lose any voters. Sonny’s not touting he will vote against abortion and Taylor isn’t mentioning he’s for it.

    Then the attack ads have to play as part of the game.

    Jeff, Casey Cagle has the same “Christian Value” credentials as Reed only without the Abramhoff scandal. They couldn’t out-Christian each other.

  18. debbie0040 says:

    I am against the bill. If people want to gamble away their money that’s their business. Just don’t come crying for a Government handout if you do.

    I agree completely with Bill Simon’s sentiments.

    The Dems would be trying to find a way to tax the internet.

    The Democratic Party is controlled by the far left wing. They nominate the most liberal candidates. Look at what happened with Lieberman.

    Look at what has happened in the Democratic Primary in Georgia since the GOP came to prominance. The moderates and conservatives vote in the GOP Primary. The liberals vote in the Democratic Primary and they tend to nominate the more liberal candidate that faces an uphill battle in the General. The exception to this is Mark Taylor. Cox was seen as the most formidable opponent to Perdue. Taylor had the Labor Union Vote and the African American vote. The African American vote and labor union vote dominated the Democratic Primary .

  19. RuralDem says:

    “The moderates and conservatives vote in the GOP Primary. The liberals vote in the Democratic Primary and they tend to nominate the more liberal candidate that faces an uphill battle in the General.”

    So there are more liberals than moderates and conservatives in Georgia? I think not.

  20. Jeff Emanuel says:

    caroline: Joe Lieberman agrees with the President on ONE issue — national security.

    Hardly an apologist. Sadly, when Lieberman wins, he’ll still caucus with the Democrats, in spite of being stabbed in the back.

  21. debbie0040 says:

    Rural Dem, I did not say there were more liberals than moderates and conservatives. I said the liberals dominate the Democratic Primary and the Democratic Party.

    Just look at the candidates the Dems nominated for statewide office. Are you saying they were the most conservative Democrats ? I think not.

    Face the fact, that the Democratic Party is dominated by special interests groups and left wingers. It is not the Democratic Party that once was.

  22. debbie0040 says:

    Caroline, I have a lot of respect for Lieberman and the stands he takes against the radical left wing peace wussies that control the National Democratic Party. If the Dems had nominate him instead of Kerry in 2004, the Dems would be in the Whitehouse now.

    You need to get out more. Lieberman, running as an independent, will defeat the Democrat.

    You Democrats shoot yourselves in the foot all the time. When you have a good shot at winning, do you nominate someone that is mainstream and has a shot at winning? No, you nominate a left winger out of touch with the mainstream voter.

  23. caroline says:

    Jeff Emanuel,
    He supports earmarks. There’s one more for you. Lieberman is not owed his seat in the Senate, despite what people like you and he think. Is the club for growth backstabbing the GOP? The real person who was stabbed in the back was Schlessinger. He was nominated by the Ct GOP and his party won’t support him.

    Debbie,
    Then why is the GOP pulling ads out of 4 senate races? Sorry, but Lieberman would have never won the WH. I find it amusing that the people who nicknamed him “loserman” have now become his staunchest defenders. Yes, I know because a good Bush apologist is hard to find!
    Radical left wing? Well, probably from an out the mainstream GA view but nationally the GOP is out of the mainstream. Only 1/3 of the country supports the Bush agenda. I know, anyone who doesn’t support expansive fundamentalism is “radical left” . LOL!

  24. Jeff Emanuel says:

    “He supports earmarks.”

    Please go more into depth on that one. Every Senator and Congressman has supported bringing home “pork” (now known as earmarks) to his or her district, even though many of us don’t like the practice.

    Is that really a legitimate gripe against Lieberman?

    No, I don’t think he’s “owed” his seat, despite you telling me I do; the fact is, though, that he’s going to win it — due to the voters of Connecticut, rather than the fringe left of the Democratic party. Is Ted Kennedy entitled to his seat in Mass.?

    Here’s a challenge for you: tell me what you like about Ned Lamont OTHER than the fact that he’s against Iraq. (here’s a hint: Kos himself was asked, and couldn’t come up with the answer without going and looking it up)

  25. caroline says:

    Jeff,
    Do you support the way Bush has been spending money? Lieberman does. Lamont doesnt’. There’s another one for you. Go to http://www.nedlamont.com and read all about it for yourself.

    Do you now think that small businesses people are part of the radical left?

    Are you aware that the majority of americans don’t like the Bush agenda? Why aren’t you mad about Schlessinger? I know why, it’s because the GOP is all about protecting a Presdisent with an approval rating in the thirties.

    The “radical left” is a strawman made up by Republicans to call anyone who opposes the Iraq debacle. After all, until Lieberman became a Bush apologist, he was a member of the “radical left” to people like you.

    Oh, and Lieberman can’t even show up for votes. Don’t you think the residents of CT deserve someone who can at least show up?

  26. Jeff Emanuel says:

    “Small businessman”? Lamont is a major corporate figure worth upwards of $300 million — you know, the kind of person that the Left generally despises. And what does it say for your class-warfare meme that your best hope of unseating an incumbent moderate is a man who’s already dumped $11 million of his own money into his campaign?

    Also, please spare me the “Democrats are the party of fiscal restraint” bit. You know as well as I do that it’s not true. The President clearly isn’t a conservative (despite the Left’s attempts to paint him as a far-right demagogue), and the Democrats aren’t any more restrained on spending.

    The “radical left

  27. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Really.

    Immediate withdrawal from Iraq, no change to the failing social security system (no progress allowed from a “progressive,” eh? — he even calls SocSec a “fake crisis”), no increase in drilling or refining capacity here at home (just “be more energy efficient” and work on renewable fuel sources), impeach President Bush over weapons of mass destruction (shouldn’t John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, etc. also be “held accountable” for claiming that Saddam had them, if we’re going there?), take a back seat to Europe and the UN in international affairs, universal government health care, dump even more money, no-questions-asked, into schools, and raise the minimum wage. Sounds pretty Liberal to me.

    But you don’t have to take my word for it. It’s all right here, in the “Lamont plan for change.”

    Oh, and just look at his supporters (Kos)

Comments are closed.