If Tea Party is so much against BIG Government and Government entering your lives, why on earth are they screaming about abortions. It is a private matter between the man and the woman or husband and wife. For the Government and Supreme Court tell them whether they can abort a pregnancy or keep it, is it not BIG Government interfering in the lives of private citizens?
HYPOCRITES.
GOP:
The Congressmen who denounce gays are caught in gay bars.
The Congressmen who uphold family values are caught sleeping with prostitutes.
Hypocritic Government and Hypocritic Conservative GOP & Tea Party.
The right wing worships Ronald Reagan who famously proclaimed: "Government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem!"
But when it comes to things like preventing abortions, suddenly government miraculously becomes the solution, not the problem.
Shit like this makes me furious. Don't get me wrong. I believe every single abortion that occurs is a monumental tragedy. But I agree with Reagan. Government is the problem, not the solution. Lets end abortion by proper sex ed, ease of obtaining contraceptives, etc. NOT by big govt intervention.
Actually you are getting the GOP and Tea Party mixed up as the TP is saying to stay away from social issues and concentrate on fiscal ones for the elections 
I respectfully disagree. For example, Christine O'Donnell seems to wish that creationism is taught in public schools. She officially says that it should be left up to local school boards, but has publicly declared evolution is a "myth" and subsequently refused to disavow that statement. My brother is the most hyper right-wing person I know, and he mailed a check to her campaign.
My point is TP is not making abortion an issue but the DEMS are 
Palin has always spoke out against abortion but others like Hailey Barber and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels want a truce on social issues to be practical right now and most REPS are wanting to say focused on tax and fiscal matters but of course some like Huckabee think different and do not want to go that route now.
It's the Republican Party that has had "Pro Life" as issue that it's candidates must agree to for Party support.
There are prominent Democrats on both sides of this issue.
It's a myth that this TEA Party is a independent group not affiliated with a political party. Without exception they are running as Republicans and it's membership are Republicans.
Maybe the Republican party knows it screwed up things horribly from 2000-2008. Now they are trying to reinvent themselves so they have tried to latch onto the Tea Party. I think some Tea Party candidates want nothing to do with Republicans. Some sense the best chance to get elected is to pander to the Republican base.
I support much of the Tea Party in principle, but I think they will just become another branch of the Republican Party. It is unfortunate because we desperately need legitimate choices besides the Democrats and Republicans.
The TEA Party was created and is funded by Republican Groups.
It is not an independent political movement. The ones I have seen are all known Republican Activist and are pushing Republican Candidates.
With the exception of anarchists, no one wants to ban all regulations and get government out of everything.
This may be one area where some conservatives favor governmental intrustion into one's life.
However, balance the limitations proposed by the most strident GOP against those of the even moderate Dem (by today's standards) and see who regulates more.
The current health care law will prohibit you from buying certain types of insurance polices by mandating that the companies provide certain things. And you raise one procedure.
If they ever get to single-payer, which is what many people openly adovcate, the fed will control EVERY
medical procedure in the country. (Who ever pays has the final word.)
In the attempt to modify behavior, Cap and Trade will raise the price, on every product that produces CO2. Compare that to abortion.
The Dept of Education provides fedral standards on schools, thereby eliminating local autonomy in many areas. The same with every other federal department.
The speach codes at many universities.
Here is the test: Every law, by very definitino, regulates conduct and prohibits or mandates something. Who ever proposes the most laws wants to regulate the most conduct.
HYPOCRITES.
GOP:
The Congressmen who denounce gays are caught in gay bars.
The Congressmen who uphold family values are caught sleeping with prostitutes.
Hypocritic Government and Hypocritic Conservative GOP & Tea Party.
Was that intentional or further evidence you lack 4th grade English skills. Learn about the grammatical use of “articles” and throw in a proper prepositional phrase or two will ya?
OK, back to the point. Unless you think along the same lines as willywonka, that murder is legitimate, then you have no problem joining conservatives in believing that government should get involved in "regulating" murder. Many conservatives believe abortion is murder and therefore conclude it should also be "regulated". Once you understand this not so small point it is easier to see the difference between proper and improper regulation of an individual’s Constitutional freedoms. You don't have to agree with the underlying philosophy to see the difference
It is true there are many social conservatives in the Tea Party as well as the GOP, much more so than in the Democrat party. Even though some Tea Party candidates willingly discuss their social issue preferences, social conservatism is not a top Tea Party issue.
Hey, I admit that when I write quickly it isn't always typo free. But since I have about 10 years of higher education, and since I am in a business that requires that I write a lot - including cases in the state Supreme Court - I think I can do pretty well when needed.
I will say that having given up hard drugs, gotten drink under control, and quit smoking, I am not ashamed of a few bad habits left, like writing quickly and not proof-reading it.
As for you, there was no need to put "articles" in quotations. You are suggesting I learn about them. One does not write "Learn 'French'." You learn French. You don't write "I learned 'how to dance' last week.' "
Now, you left out a period after "difference." (The quotation marks are proper there because I am quoting the word for you to find. You also omitted the question mark in your first sentence.
If you are going to knock someone's writing, you really should do it without mistakes of your own. Just a suggestion.
But, back to the point.
If the government tells me I cannot buy a certain type of health insurance that I want, such as high deductible, it is intrusive.
If the government eventually says that I have to take the red pill, instead of the blue pill, like Obama suggested, it is intrusive.
if it says I cannot enter a contract with a bank for a certain type of credit card because some people pay too much, it is intrusive in my choice.
If the government says I cannot have a fireplace in my living room, like parts of CA are doing, it is intrusive.
If the government says I have to use a certain light bulb, even if it gives me a head ache and has to be handled in a special way, it is intrusive.
Even if the government builds a road, it is intrusive to the extent that it is impacting the lives of people whose home was taken for the road. (I know this is a proper purpose and function of the State, but it is still intrusive.)
Finally, you create a big straw man with the murder analogy. No one says there should be no regulation. Prohibiting murder is a proper intrusion of the State into my life, even if I would like to kill people who don't use their turn signals.
Find one conservative who says there should be no regulation, and I will give $1,000 to your fav charity. My point is that generally the party that pushes the most regulation is the most intrusive, by definition of law.
OK, back to the point. Unless you think along the same lines as willywonka, that murder is legitimate, then you have no problem joining conservatives in believing that government should get involved in "regulating" murder. Many conservatives believe abortion is murder and therefore conclude it should also be "regulated". Once you understand this not so small point it is easier to see the difference between proper and improper regulation of an individual’s Constitutional freedoms. You don't have to agree with the underlying philosophy to see the difference
It is true there are many social conservatives in the Tea Party as well as the GOP, much more so than in the Democrat party. Even though some Tea Party candidates willingly discuss their social issue preferences, social conservatism is not a top Tea Party issue.
If you pay more attention to post placement, you will have more time left over to attend to your important and busy work load.
But while we’re at it, and once again for benlanger’s benefit as well, big and intrusive are not logical identities. While big may almost always equal intrusive, intrusive does not equal big. I never made any claims about conservatives’ viewpoints on murder. benlanger’s main point was about his inquisition towards the supposed hypocrisy of the TP regarding anti big-government vs. pro anti-abortion. And surly you’ve noticed his near total lack of the use of “articles” and the misuse of prepositions.
The analogy I guess I so poorly laid out was supposed to show that if a person considered abortion as murder then it’s prosecution (I chose the softer, regulation) would be pursued regardless the correct philosophical size of government.
I looked at the placement and thought it was under mine. Sometimes the order looks weird.
Actually, I thought I was the only one dumb enough to reply to Benlanger. I thought other people had more sense than banging their head against a brick wall.
Sorry twice. I didn't mean to speak in a negative manner about a brick wall. Much smarter than benl.
Your analogy does come closer the way you laid it out. The problem is that the vast majority of pro-life consider it homicide, but not all homicides are the same in severity. Only the fringe bandy about murder.
True, small can be a little intrusive, but big gov will always intrude more.
Funny how people that don't want the gov telling them what to do with their wombs (abortion) are willing to hand over the whole body to State health restrictions.
But while we’re at it, and once again for benlanger’s benefit as well, big and intrusive are not logical identities. While big may almost always equal intrusive, intrusive does not equal big. I never made any claims about conservatives’ viewpoints on murder. benlanger’s main point was about his inquisition towards the supposed hypocrisy of the TP regarding anti big-government vs. pro anti-abortion. And surly you’ve noticed his near total lack of the use of “articles” and the misuse of prepositions.
The analogy I guess I so poorly laid out was supposed to show that if a person considered abortion as murder then it’s prosecution (I chose the softer, regulation) would be pursued regardless the correct philosophical size of government.