Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)
10. It is a similar them not me attitude that "small government" types have
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 10:10 AM
Jul 2012

that want government small enough to drown in a bathtub but big enough to supervise the bedrooms, doctors offices, and every vagina from sea to shining sea.

In my mind, you grant powers to the government or you do not but then I am a die hard limited government person, that being the government's authority is granted from and held in trust for the people rather than our rights being granted by the state.

Complicated and human or not, you know you have reached a point of cognitive dissonance. An exception has undone your rule. A hypocrite believes two morally at odds positions, you are in extreme danger of taking a step further to holding two mutually exclusive positions, which means you are essentially and fundamentally dishonest about one of them. You cannot be against the security state and for initiatives that require it.
You are actually acting in concert with the "terra terra" types in building the security state consensus. You have your reasons and they have theirs and eventually both will meet in the middle and we'll just have a security state and we'll all be miserable though you will be more put out than your opposite number because they don't give a shit about anything but your exception.

There is much more to be lost than to be gained and you will not be one bit more safe just more under control.

It may well be human but it isn't complicated. The concept is old as humans or older, wanting to have your cake and eat it to.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

At least you're honest about the hypocrisy. - nt badtoworse Jul 2012 #1
I look at that this way. I can only carry so many rounds of 3 oz. bottles snappyturtle Jul 2012 #2
yeah, but it's an absurd restriction... it does notng to actually stop determined terrorists. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #32
That's just hypocrisy, nothing more. And I understand it. Bluenorthwest Jul 2012 #3
Do you or did you have to piss in a jar to get or keep a job? Fumesucker Jul 2012 #4
That is something you want to encourage and perpetuate? TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #6
There doesn't seem to be any social movement against workplace drug testing.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #7
And that's a damn shame. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #11
+1 Go Vols Jul 2012 #31
I'm pretty fiercely against either invasion but the urine being substituted, diluted, or artificial TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #20
So what? HuckleB Jul 2012 #15
From the OP.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #17
Context. HuckleB Jul 2012 #28
My reply was to the OP, not you.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #29
I'm all for airport security frazzled Jul 2012 #5
That's because you travel and don't own (or want to own) guns. Edweird Jul 2012 #8
What's different is the level of actual public safety concern. HuckleB Jul 2012 #14
>Implying DHS/TSA is anything more than police state theatrics. Edweird Jul 2012 #18
So you can't answer. HuckleB Jul 2012 #27
The TSA has no reason. Gun control does - there are reasonable limits. HopeHoops Jul 2012 #9
I concur. Surprised? Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #12
I still think restrictions on clip sizes would go a long way. Nobody needs 100 rounds. HopeHoops Jul 2012 #16
I don't honestly think it would make much difference. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #21
IMO, the higher the limit the more support you will get. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #37
It is a similar them not me attitude that "small government" types have TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #10
There is nothing inherently at odds here. HuckleB Jul 2012 #13
No, he is at fundamental odds. He'd authorize house to house searches of the general population TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #22
Thanks for posting a whole lot of nothing. HuckleB Jul 2012 #24
Please elaborate. I'm not aware of any logical fallacies presented in the post. TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #30
Seems there was a underwear bomber and a shoe bomber. Remmah2 Jul 2012 #19
Who cares? HuckleB Jul 2012 #25
Cognitive Dissonance Lasher Jul 2012 #23
There's no dissonance. HuckleB Jul 2012 #26
Well, you can either choose to live with the hypocricy, or not. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #33
Me and the TSA Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2012 #34
You drive a car. You want the other people on the road to know what they are doing. IdaBriggs Jul 2012 #35
Generally it's easier to agree to strip others of their rights 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I am opposed to DHS (TSA,...»Reply #10