RW'ers on Government Protection

[ck4829]

Has anyone noticed that the same RW'ers who say "Civil Liberties don't matter much if you are dead" and basically are willing to give the government more power to battle terrorists even if it means making the government bigger are also the same RW'ers who say "Healthcare is not a right" and that they think that government does not need to battle poverty.

So for them, it's OK for the government to battle terrorism, but it's not OK for the government to make sure that everyone has healthcare and that poverty should be dealt with by the government.

What's up with that?

[magellan]

1. One has to do with their personal health and safety

The other does not. (Cuz they're the party of personal responsiblity and don't need gov't handouts - so they say. :eyes:)

With RW'ers, you can bet that anything they champion is founded in their own exclusionary desires, with no interest in how their objectives effect others. Everybody gets it only if they decide they personally want it; if they don't want it, nobody gets it.