So the tea party is wounded and Chris Christie is the face of (R)

[Bailey Guns]

The only people who have a more utopian, idealistic view of what the world should be than democrats are libertarians. And they're more annoying. It's not even worth attempting to argue with the libertarians here any longer because they live in a dream world where logic, reason and facts don't exist.

[generalmeow]

The only people who have a more utopian, idealistic view of what the world should be than democrats are libertarians. And they're more annoying. It's not even worth attempting to argue with the libertarians here any longer because they live in a dream world where logic, reason and facts don't exist.

Name one year that Republicans have been in charge where either government scope and/or spending has decreased, and I'll listen.

And if you can't name a year, please consider that maybe Republicans aren't actually doing what you're voting for. Or maybe you're not in favor of smaller government and more freedom?

[Bailey Guns]

Name one year that Republicans have been in charge where either government scope and/or spending has decreased, and I'll listen.

Think about why that's a stupid "did you stop beating your wife" question. Come on...you can do it. Let me give you a hint. It has to do with growth, expansion, etc. It's never gonna happen. I agree that gov't has too much control where they shouldn't, I agree that some republicans are partially to blame for that, and I agree that gov't spends way too much money on things they shouldn't be involved in and spending money on. But to make a blanket statement that there should be no gov't expansion and spending should never increase is as ignorant as thinking the libertarian party is the answer to our prayers.

The budget deficit was erased and we had a budget surplus when republicans were in charge of the house and senate from roughly 1998 to 2001. There were a lot of factors that went into that, of course, but it was at least partially due to fiscal restraint by republicans regarding gov't spending. You will NEVER get that with democrats. You will NEVER get that with a divided legislature. At least with republicans in charge we have a chance to get smaller gov't and less spending. You will NEVER get that with libertarians because the general population may be stupid but they're not stupid enough to vote for libertarians in large numbers. Thank God.

As to the other part of your question you'll have to define "government scope" a little better.

Now it's your turn to play that game:

Name one year when libertarians have been in charge...

Oh, wait. You can't. Because they're a fringe party and get a fraction of the vote because rational, intelligent people don't vote for them because libertarians live in a fantasy world.

Even the savior of the libertarians, Ron Paul, didn't have the stones to run as a libertarian.

You can continue to hump the libertarian leg all you want. You'll also continue to be irrelevant in the political world...just like libertarians.

[Aloha_Shooter]

You can continue to hump the libertarian leg all you want. You'll also continue to be irrelevant in the political world...just like libertarians.

They aren't quite irrelevant, their obfuscation helps elect Democrats. Yeah, there's a lot to argue with establishment Republicans like Dick Lugar over but "libertarians" like GM don't help fight Obamanism either, they just accelerate the decline.

[generalmeow]

but "libertarians" like GM don't help fight Obamanism either, they just accelerate the decline.

Which is exactly what I want. That doesn't insult me or make me think twice about it. I'm glad you can see that's what I'm doing.

The only thing voting Republican is going to do is slow down the transition to socialism, which is exactly what we don't want. If it happens fast, people will reject it. If it happens slow, people will accept it. That's the scariest scenario, isn't it? That we turn socialist, and people accept it? That's what voting Republican is going to get us. It puts the brakes on just enough to allow people time to adjust to the negative changes.

My number one preference is for Libertarians to be in charge. My second preference is for democrats to get everything they want, so people get so infuriated with this bullshit that they boil over. Having republicans in charge is not a preference at all. I vote Libertarian because with one vote I get my first two preferences.

[Gman]

My number one preference is for Libertarians to be in charge. My second preference is for democrats to get everything they want, so people get so infuriated with this bullshit that they boil over. Having republicans in charge is not a preference at all. I vote Libertarian because with one vote I get my first two preferences.

Libertarians by nature don't want to be in charge. Your other choice is to set your course for the center of the sun and hit the throttle. That sounds like fun.

[generalmeow]

Think about why that's a stupid "did you stop beating your wife" question. Come on...you can do it. Let me give you a hint. It has to do with growth, expansion, etc. It's never gonna happen. I agree that gov't has too much control where they shouldn't, I agree that some republicans are partially to blame for that, and I agree that gov't spends way too much money on things they shouldn't be involved in and spending money on. But to make a blanket statement that there should be no gov't expansion and spending should never increase is as ignorant as thinking the libertarian party is the answer to our prayers.

The budget deficit was erased and we had a budget surplus when republicans were in charge of the house and senate from roughly 1998 to 2001. There were a lot of factors that went into that, of course, but it was at least partially due to fiscal restraint by republicans regarding gov't spending. You will NEVER get that with democrats. You will NEVER get that with a divided legislature. At least with republicans in charge we have a chance to get smaller gov't and less spending. You will NEVER get that with libertarians because the general population may be stupid but they're not stupid enough to vote for libertarians in large numbers. Thank God.

As to the other part of your question you'll have to define "government scope" a little better.

Now it's your turn to play that game:

Name one year when libertarians have been in charge...

Oh, wait. You can't. Because they're a fringe party and get a fraction of the vote because rational, intelligent people don't vote for them because libertarians live in a fantasy world.

Even the savior of the libertarians, Ron Paul, didn't have the stones to run as a libertarian.

You can continue to hump the libertarian leg all you want. You'll also continue to be irrelevant in the political world...just like libertarians.

Alright, you keep voting Republican. Glad it's working out for you. I'm surprised that it is based on the position our country is in today, but just keep doing what you're doing if you like it.