I am ceased to be surprised by this kind of shit. But here's my question: Aren't Republicans the party of limited government and freedom and fiscal responsibility? Let's see...
- Limited government? Well, if doctors are to lose their licenses for performing abortions, it seems we'd need some investigators, huh? More bureaucracy!
- Freedom? Unless I'm wrong, I thought the definition of freedom was along the lines of "the government won't restrict your actions". Now freedom means "the government will restrict harmless actions that it disagrees with"? How Orwellian.
- Fiscal responsibility? Well, considering that this law is guaranteed to bring on a lawsuit, not so much.
How much longer are people going to buy the Republican's bullshit?
(BBC)
See also South Dakota.
ReplyDeleteAren't Republicans the party of limited government and freedom and fiscal responsibility?
Apparently, limited government and freedom are only for default humans, a.k.a. men. But the trope about the GOP being the party of fiscal responsibility is demonstrably, laughably false. Honestly I don't know how it gets any traction whatsoever.
Oh, excellent linky, thanks! Yeah, I kind of figured that the Republicans lost any claim to the mantle of "fiscally responsible" when they started two wars with no way to find either one.
DeleteOf course, lord knows Reganomics (or, ahem, voodoo economics) was the opposite of fiscally sound. So... yeah. I'll check out the link, but you're totes right on this.
(How sad is it that I'm still trying to figure out my own comments system? I'll have to see if I can get rid of the "reply" button.)