Until conservatives in this country realize that the Republican party are liars and will never reduce government spending the government spending will continue to get out of hand.

Do you really want small government I doubt it and your vote for the same ole thing will result in the same ole thing.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-criticize-cpac-conservatives

A message from the Libertarian party.

"smaller govt" is R code for "de-regulation", not fewer employees or less spending. Its an age old problem that has come home to bite them in the butt many times and now, have ruined the country. You could take their flagship social issue of abortion and ask the same thing -- when they controlled everything for 6 years, Congress & the W.H., why didn't they move to do anything then ?

Answer -- Rs have made a science out of taking advantage of everyone with their "politics".

Have the Democrats done better? They had a full year plus of complete and total control of the government. Did they fix any part of this issue?

BCS, show me how the Ds have done better and you'll have me convinced. Until then your biased rhetoric is hilarious.

Trust me, I'm not happy with the Rs of the last decade either, but they are the lesser of two evils with regards to big government compared to the Ds.

jmog wrote: BCS, show me how the Ds have done better and you'll have me convinced. Until then your biased rhetoric is hilarious.

Trust me, I'm not happy with the Rs of the last decade either, but they are the lesser of two evils with regards to big government compared to the Ds.

+1- Chris Christie in NJ is doing a pretty good job at reducing spending and the size of govt. It's another thing entirely to do it at the federal level.
And the Rs never had a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate like the D's did for a year before Scott Brown won in Mass. But they're still not without blame.

jmog wrote: BCS, show me how the Ds have done better and you'll have me convinced. Until then your biased rhetoric is hilarious.

Trust me, I'm not happy with the Rs of the last decade either, but they are the lesser of two evils with regards to big government compared to the Ds.

I don't think they're the lesser of two evils, just a different type of "evil."

Paladin wrote:...when they controlled everything for 6 years, Congress & the W.H., why didn't they move to do anything then ?

Because they acted like Democrats?

Paladin wrote:Answer -- Rs have made a science out of taking advantage of everyone with their "politics".

You mean they acted like Democrats?

Hopefully both parties are beginning to "cut the pork". A few entrenched DC members of congress lost in their primary elections, so let's see what happens in November.

Yeah, acting like democrats is not a good way to smaller government.


R's expand government and tell the world what is best for it....D's expand government and tell America what is good for it.

Want to have better government bring back Tar and Feather, Term limits, No party controls of all three braches, Senator and Congress can not be millionaires, They all have to wear jackets….red (Rep), blue (Dem), green (Indep), yellow (Socialist) and topless (Liberals) that way we all can tell quickly what asshole party they belong to, they have to be addressed as Public Servant Congressman or Public Servant Senator just a reminder of who they work for, required 4 open to the public court house /town house meeting per year in their district open question and answer format, drug and alcohol testing per year I could make a few more suggestion but you get the idea. Oh shit one more thing…they have to be logged into the Chatter….

I think a lot of people here forget that being a Congressman or Senator is just another job. We all like to pretend that we wouldn't let anyone influence us off of our viewpoints and morals but we would. All of us would.

Belly, term limits could work out decently, but I think bringing back tar an feathering, restricting the wealth of congressman, and party uniforms is silly. Also it seems pretty funny coming from the pro-business person you are. Aren't people wealthy because they work harder and smarter than others? So wouldn't you want those people in DC?

I Wear Pants wrote: I think a lot of people here forget that being a Congressman or Senator is just another job. We all like to pretend that we wouldn't let anyone influence us off of our viewpoints and morals but we would. All of us would.

Belly, term limits could work out decently, but I think bringing back tar an feathering, restricting the wealth of congressman, and party uniforms is silly. Also it seems pretty funny coming from the pro-business person you are. Aren't people wealthy because they work harder and smarter than others? So wouldn't you want those people in DC?

Belly, term limits could work out decently, but I think bringing back tar an feathering, restricting the wealth of congressman, and party uniforms is silly. Also it seems pretty funny coming from the pro-business person you are. Aren't people wealthy because they work harder and smarter than others? So wouldn't you want those people in DC?[/qoute]

You would think that I would what wealthy people in DC but see that where I understand that in some position wealth and common sense and common values get skewed. Just being wealth does not carry the entitlement of being fit for a position of authority nor does it provide the wisdom to know what those in your district required needs and wants. Proven successful people yes but to be millionaires not needed……
We need people in Congress and Senate that are in touch and have skin in the game of those who they represent.

jmog wrote: BCS, show me how the Ds have done better and you'll have me convinced. Until then your biased rhetoric is hilarious.

Trust me, I'm not happy with the Rs of the last decade either, but they are the lesser of two evils with regards to big government compared to the Ds.

The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. Both parties are the same in terms of spending, they just like to spend on different things.

Those of us that desire smaller federal government have recognized and acknowledged that fact.

I Wear Pants wrote: I think a lot of people here forget that being a Congressman or Senator is just another job. We all like to pretend that we wouldn't let anyone influence us off of our viewpoints and morals but we would. All of us would.

I disagree that being a Congressman (a senator is a Congressman, I think you meant Representatives and Senators) is just another job. You're elected to represent constituents in your district/region. Essentially, an elected official should just be a voice of their constituents, not a decions maker for their constituents. JMO

Dems have had control of Congress since 2007 and our debt has gone up how much?

Yeah, bash the damn Republicans who were in there all you want, they sure deserve it. But this group (Obama and Pelosi) are sending us on a faster track to hell than any of us could have imagined.

So if there's even a CHANCE that a new group does a better job than this batch of crooks, cronies and thieves, then it's a chance worth taking.

jmog wrote: BCS, show me how the Ds have done better and you'll have me convinced. Until then your biased rhetoric is hilarious.

Trust me, I'm not happy with the Rs of the last decade either, but they are the lesser of two evils with regards to big government compared to the Ds.

Wrong. I do not have to show how the democrats have done better. They will tell you they want large government.

So you have the Dems who want big government and tell you so and you have the R's who lie through their teeth and in the meantime the Libertarian party wants to reduce to size of government.

Both parties are proponents of BIG GOVERNMENT. Those that traditionally vote democratic are aware of this fact. Those that vote for R's are oblivious to the facts the the R's are also BIG GOVERNMENT.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Dems have had control of Congress since 2007 and our debt has gone up how much?

Yeah, bash the damn Republicans who were in there all you want, they sure deserve it. But this group (Obama and Pelosi) are sending us on a faster track to hell than any of us could have imagined.

So if there's even a CHANCE that a new group does a better job than this batch of crooks, cronies and thieves, then it's a chance worth taking.

This is part of the problem. The lesser of two evils. Why take evil at all?

It is time for a third party to rise if neither party has your interest in mind do not vote for them.

I am liberal but will vote libertarian to reduce government because I want more liberty and not less.

The larger the government becomes the less liberty the people will have.

Both the R's and the D's are proponents of large government.

^^^

Which is why I was so damned torn between the two last election cycle. Both of them sucked.

Yes, the 3rd party would answer all our troubles. They would never ever become just like the D's and R's once they get to DC.

dwccrew wrote:

jmog wrote: BCS, show me how the Ds have done better and you'll have me convinced. Until then your biased rhetoric is hilarious.

Trust me, I'm not happy with the Rs of the last decade either, but they are the lesser of two evils with regards to big government compared to the Ds.

The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. Both parties are the same in terms of spending, they just like to spend on different things.

Those of us that desire smaller federal government have recognized and acknowledged that fact.

I Wear Pants wrote: I think a lot of people here forget that being a Congressman or Senator is just another job. We all like to pretend that we wouldn't let anyone influence us off of our viewpoints and morals but we would. All of us would.

I disagree that being a Congressman (a senator is a Congressman, I think you meant Representatives and Senators) is just another job. You're elected to represent constituents in your district/region. Essentially, an elected official should just be a voice of their constituents, not a decions maker for their constituents. JMO

Couldn't disagree more.

My favorite Edmund Burke speech.

I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.

He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;" and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.

Mr. 300 wrote: Yes, the 3rd party would answer all our troubles. They would never ever become just like the D's and R's once they get to DC.

Depends on the party.

You see action speaks louder than words.

We already know that R's and D's are huge government parties the Libertarians entire platform is about small government. Which I hear R's clamoring about but like the article I posted says they want a huge government too just not exactly the same as the D's want.

Bottomline huge government.

Right now I hear how large government is failing us?

So the answer is to vote for another large government party again?

If that is what people think then there is no hope for this country and people should stop whining about big government when you know damn well that the person you just voted for is a for big government.

It is down right hiliarious.

Mr. 300 wrote: Yes, the 3rd party would answer all our troubles. They would never ever become just like the D's and R's once they get to DC.

England has clearly shown us this way works. :rolleyes:

BCSbunk wrote:If that is what people think then there is no hope for this country and people should stop whining about big government when you know damn well that the person you just voted for is a for big government.

It is down right hiliarious.

Yes it is....and it would be equally downright hilarious to believe that libertarians won't succumb to special interest groups and the temptation to spend taxpayer dollars to appease those special interest groups for purposes of political expediency... assuming they successfully form a viable third party of course.

I say we blow up the whole fucking thing. Eventually we will all run out of bullets and it will be back to stones sticks and swords.

Eventually, the fat lazy fucks will all die off and Darwin will win.

BCSBunk wrote>>>

"I am liberal but will vote libertarian to reduce government because I want more liberty and not less."

WTF???. An oxymnoron if I've ever heard one.

http://goooh.com/