Quotes About Government

I cannot think of any circumstances in which a government can go to war without the support of parliament.

It is not an arrogant government that chooses priorities, it's an irresponsible government that fails to choose.

In government you carry each hope each disillusion. And in politics it's always about the next challenge.

On these issues, the public fib. They say they want increased spending, and in theory they do—but in practice they think someone else should pay for it. However, there it is. As I used to say, the public aren't always logical, but that's their prerogative. They do expect their government to be, nonetheless.

The only difference between compassionate conservatism and conservatism is that under compassionate conservatism they tell you they're not going to help you but they're really sorry about it.

I propose that the government should get out of the business of marrying people and, instead, only give legal status to civil unions.

But I think it's up to a local congregation to determine whether or not a marriage should be blessed of God. And it shouldn't be up to the government.

From the beginning, there have been some religious leaders who greeted the funding of faith-based social services by government with ambivalence.

Clinton's successor in the White House, George W. Bush, was committed to expanding government spending for faith-based initiatives.

If marriage really is a sacred institution, then why is the government controlling it, especially in a nation that affirms separation of church and state?

What is especially important is addressing the question of how religion can be enforced through political means and what can be done to create a political environment that, on the one hand, acknowledges the role of religion in society, while on the other hand does not impose one religion on the populace at the expense of all others.

President Bush once said that marriage is a sacred institution and should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman. If this is the case - and most Americans would agree with him on this - then I have to ask: Why is the government at all involved in marrying people?

After-school tutoring programs, care for the elderly, shelters for the homeless, disaster relief work, and a variety of other services would all benefit from government funding.

Getting the government to put money into social programs run by religious institutions is a practice that started during the Clinton years, when Bill Clinton advocated the AmeriCorps program.

But I contend that if we're providing total medical coverage for every man, woman, and child in Iraq, shouldn't we at least be doing the same thing for every man, woman, and child in the United States?

Whole villages of Muslims had been hacked to pieces by drunken Christian youth, and as foreigners, we should have been pulled out by the organization. But the U.S. government supported the Christian tribes, just as the French had all through the colonial days, and to pull us out would have meant admitting that things weren't as stable for their puppet government as the western companies, trading in Ivory Coast for cocoa, rubber, and timber, and selling Coke and cigarettes, wanted to hear.

The newspapers say that this ripping off the four billion or so of Tribal royalty money has been going on for more than fifty years. And they're quoting the government bean counters. Right? I can't see much hope of me finding anything new.

Whatever Americans fondly believe, their government has always had its fingers in the economic pie. What distinguishes the USA from every other developed country has been the widespread belief to the contrary.

The only thing worse than too much government is too little: in failed states, people suffer at least as much violence and injustice as under authoritarian rule, and in addition their trains do not run on time.

Cubans were getting a monthly ration of five pounds of rice, three pounds of beans, five eggs, one chicken, half a pound of coffee, milk for children up to age seven, one bar of soap, two rolls of toilet paper, three packs of cigarettes.

socialism has only two fundamental problems: lunch and dinner.

Somehow, when his duties had consisted of killing hostile Sioux and Cheyenne, Zane had been able to justify the situation. Those groups were warring against the wagon trains and refusing to follow government instructions. Many tribes saw the whites as an impossible threat, refusing to even try to get along. But the Blackfoot had been friendly. For the most part. Mountain

Allow? Shouldn't women decide what they'll allow for their own bodies, not a government acting out an antiquated, unnecessary law?

Medicine is a social science, and politics is nothing but medicine on a large scale.