the issues being forced down our throats are issues that one generation after another corrects. the gov doesn’t need to interfere with our social issues. after a time, social issues will right itself. only interference from mandated policies cause rebellion from the people.

Tano pretends that conservatives are for a weak confederation.

Of course, neither diverting tactic has anything whatsoever to do with the issues. But then, that is how liberals debate. They say Bush lied and skip the part of how really, really really, dumb that makes their chosen leaders for being suckered.

Gays who take risks with HIV/AIDS are expensive. Maybe the nanny state will crush fat gays extra hard for their lifestyles. After all, preventative medicine will bring health care costs down and fat people, drug addicts, homeless people, rare disease people, elderly people, premature births, people who keep having heart attacks, STD people, combat soldiers and the weak minded are the most expensive consumers of health care.

What is the nanny state to do with people who just won’t be healthy or stay out of harm’s way? Why seat belts? After all, mangled is far more expensive to the nationalized health care than dead.

See how this works? Conservatives see the nanny state as the judge and jury. Liberals see the nanny state as a fat sow and a free ride for everyone from citizens to poor illegal aliens who vote Democrat.

As to nationalizing Alaska’s oil and gas, I can see Tano’s point. That way Obama can fill the gas tanks of the people ACORN and SEIU designate as needy and worthy.

Actually, I must admit that I prefer the Palin type of nanny-state.

You mean the Alaska Permanent Fund which was added to Alaska’s Constitution 30 years before she became governor?

Why cant we nationalize that scheme?

If we did, would you push for more drilling, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico and expansion of Oil Sands?

I mean, Alaska oil is American oil – it belongs to all of us.

And to hell with state’s rights, property rights and mineral rights, eh? We could just claim it all in the name of Chairman Obama.

Get back to me when she supports the legalization of drugs
or allowing the sale of alcohol to 18 year olds
or stops trying to protect society from gays and supports indifference to gay marriage

Get back to me when the liberal party does the same.

gillie doesn’t understand principles. Thus his confusion.

Get back to me when she supports the legalization of drugs
or allowing the sale of alcohol to 18 year olds
or stops trying to protect society from gays and supports indifference to gay marriage

oh wait… i forgot. For the intellectual dishonest conservatives in those instances, its OK for the gov to nanny…
sorry about that
- but it would be much easier if you folks simply posted the exceptions to your principles