• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?

Will the Tea Party movement remain relevant if the GOP wins the White House?


  • Total voters
    29
The Republican Party controlled all three branches from 2001 to 2006, and the federal government only grew under their watch.

Furthermore, a big chunk of the public outrage over Guantanamo, the USA PATRIOT Act, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a whole host of other things evaporated as soon as Bush left office and Obama came in (IMO, anyway, we can debate over this too).

With these points in mind, do you think that the Tea Party will remain politically relevant if the Republicans win in 2012? Or will fiscal conservatism be relegated to the back of the bus once the GOP is in power?

There is no path I can see for a republican candidate to the White House without significant Tea Party support. As such it will be a constituancy that the president would then want to keep happy. So yes, if a republican wins, then I would say they would remain relelvant. Whether they would remain in the same form as they are is a much different question.
 
Of course it won't. Even GOP Presidents can be big government spenders.

That's because the GOP isn't conservative anymore, they're the hyper-religious liberal party. There isn't a fiscally conservative party in America these days.
 
I voted 'probably', even though this hypothetical -> Repubs win the white house, isn't going to happen.


4 more years!
 
I understand the need and desire to want to take care of issues with your guy or your party quietly and in-house, but the question I have is was Bush really "our guy"?

Because the vast amount of voters in America are pragmatic rather than idealistic so realize that, at least in the immediate present and foreseeable future, the Republican Party is the closest thing to a viable ideologically conservative party in the United States. And Bush was the Republican President.

I'll use a sports analogy, which I do often in this because its a very similar group mentality, of the "franchise QB". You may know that the guy you have isn't going to be your franchise QB, you know he's not going to win it for you...but for the time being he's your guy so when talking to fans of opposing teams and in general you're apt to be like "Oh yeah, we can win with him, he's better than you think!". When in reality, in private or amongst other fans of your team, you're going "man...we've GOT to get a new guy soon".

And the larger question we should be looking at is this: Is the Republican Party still the party of fiscal conservatism?

Of the two viable major political parties in the US? Yes. However, at this point when viewing the party at large its akin to saying that rice cakes are more flavorful than cardboard.

So why should fiscal conservatives keep quiet and try to deal with their issues with the GOP quietly and in-house?

Not saying they should, I'm saying they will, based on human nature and the mentality of the average voters in the US regardless of political party. Whether they should or not is an entirely different argument.
 
Because the vast amount of voters in America are pragmatic rather than idealistic so realize that, at least in the immediate present and foreseeable future, the Republican Party is the closest thing to a viable ideologically conservative party in the United States. And Bush was the Republican President.

I'll use a sports analogy, which I do often in this because its a very similar group mentality, of the "franchise QB". You may know that the guy you have isn't going to be your franchise QB, you know he's not going to win it for you...but for the time being he's your guy so when talking to fans of opposing teams and in general you're apt to be like "Oh yeah, we can win with him, he's better than you think!". When in reality, in private or amongst other fans of your team, you're going "man...we've GOT to get a new guy soon".

Even sports fans can turn a guy if he's bad enough or offensive enough. Plenty of guys have booed out of town for sucking. The point of my question was looking at things now, can we point to any major or significant stance or initiative that Bush took or promoted that could be called fiscally conservative? I can't think of one.

As far as pragmatic goes, I get it to a point. I consider myself to be a pragmatic libertarian. I don't expect mainstream candidates to line up perfectly with my views, even though I'm moderate by many libertarian standards. But at a certain point ideals have to matter. Just being less bad than the other guys becomes meaningless after a certain point. Allow me to paint an extreme example. Candidate A wants to abolish the military entirely. Candidate B just wants to disband the navy and airforce. Measuring them in a vaccuum against each other, Candidate B is more reasonable. But both are still insanely reckless. Do you vote for B because he's slightly less damaging to the country? Or do you say, "Its time to start looking for option C?"

Of the two viable major political parties in the US? Yes. However, at this point when viewing the party at large its akin to saying that rice cakes are more flavorful than cardboard.

Yes, if you make a strict comparison between Democrats and Republicans, the GOP is slightly more fiscally conservative. But to use your agenda they're offering rice cakes when they could be offering steak. Or if steak is too extreme, chicken or even just a nice salad would be better. Almost anything would be better than rice cakes. Being tastier than cardboard is hardly something to brag about. And my point is fiscal conservatives should be sick and tired of eating rice cakes when the GOP keeps promising juicy steaks. Its time we stood up and called them out on their failure to deliver.

Not saying they should, I'm saying they will, based on human nature and the mentality of the average voters in the US regardless of political party. Whether they should or not is an entirely different argument.

That's the argument I think we should be having. Like I said, I'm willing compromise. I might want to cut the government by 30%, but I'd still vote for a candidate who only wants to cut it by 10% because its a step in the right direction even if it doesn't go as far as I'd like. But I'm sick of voting for guys who want to grow it by 5% and claim to be the fiscal conservatives because the other guy wants to grow it by 10%. Either way, we're moving in the wrong direction. Its just a question of how fast.
 
[...] I consider myself to be a pragmatic libertarian. I don't expect mainstream candidates to line up perfectly with my views, even though I'm moderate by many libertarian standards. But at a certain point ideals have to matter. Just being less bad than the other guys becomes meaningless after a certain point. Allow me to paint an extreme example. Candidate A wants to abolish the military entirely. Candidate B just wants to disband the navy and airforce. Measuring them in a vaccuum against each other, Candidate B is more reasonable. But both are still insanely reckless. [...]
Candidate A is your man. Like the founders, Libertarians want no standing army. You're no Libertarian.
 
Even sports fans can turn a guy if he's bad enough or offensive enough. Plenty of guys have booed out of town for sucking. The point of my question was looking at things now, can we point to any major or significant stance or initiative that Bush took or promoted that could be called fiscally conservative? I can't think of one.

You could possibly say the Bush Tax Cuts if viewed on singularly on their own measure rather than in the total context of his policies. A few of the market aspects of Medicare Part D have proven somewhat fiscally successful, but as a whole that policy can't really be put forward as an example. But yeah, there's no much to hang your hat on.

As far as pragmatic goes, I get it to a point. I consider myself to be a pragmatic libertarian. I don't expect mainstream candidates to line up perfectly with my views, even though I'm moderate by many libertarian standards. But at a certain point ideals have to matter. Just being less bad than the other guys becomes meaningless after a certain point. Allow me to paint an extreme example. Candidate A wants to abolish the military entirely. Candidate B just wants to disband the navy and airforce. Measuring them in a vaccuum against each other, Candidate B is more reasonable. But both are still insanely reckless. Do you vote for B because he's slightly less damaging to the country? Or do you say, "Its time to start looking for option C?"

I do believe such a point DOES exist. I just think its a lot farther off than people like you, and I to a point, would like. While we may consider ourselves pragmatic...realistically we're still more idealistic than the average voter.

Its going to take something massive, and on something that is a hot button issue for the average person, similar to what you just described to finally cause such a choice to occur. Sadly....spending a lot in one way or spending a lot in another way, right now, isn't cutting it for causing that pragmatic nature to be tossed out.

Yes, if you make a strict comparison between Democrats and Republicans, the GOP is slightly more fiscally conservative. But to use your agenda they're offering rice cakes when they could be offering steak. Or if steak is too extreme, chicken or even just a nice salad would be better. Almost anything would be better than rice cakes. Being tastier than cardboard is hardly something to brag about. And my point is fiscal conservatives should be sick and tired of eating rice cakes when the GOP keeps promising juicy steaks. Its time we stood up and called them out on their failure to deliver.

I agree that being tastier than cardboard isn't something to brag about. But it's apparently enough, at least it has been for some time and appears that it will be for some time in the near future. And I agree with you that it'd be more beneficial in the long run for Republicans to take a stand and say "no, wer'e not going along with this anymore". I just don't think its going to happen...and I can't really blame people for it to be honest even if I disagree with it.
 
They were the ones who invented the sexual innuendo themselves. Unless you think this is pro-Obama:

They loved being Tea Baggers until they found out the sexual connotation.

TeaBaggerLogic.jpg
 
You could possibly say the Bush Tax Cuts if viewed on singularly on their own measure rather than in the total context of his policies. A few of the market aspects of Medicare Part D have proven somewhat fiscally successful, but as a whole that policy can't really be put forward as an example. But yeah, there's no much to hang your hat on.

I do believe such a point DOES exist. I just think its a lot farther off than people like you, and I to a point, would like. While we may consider ourselves pragmatic...realistically we're still more idealistic than the average voter.

Its going to take something massive, and on something that is a hot button issue for the average person, similar to what you just described to finally cause such a choice to occur. Sadly....spending a lot in one way or spending a lot in another way, right now, isn't cutting it for causing that pragmatic nature to be tossed out.

I agree. What would you define as "massive"? I'm thinking there would need to be a combination of factors...and that if gas goes up past $6, this might be the pragmatic issue that's the tipping point.

That will hit ordinary Americans very hard, and not just at the pump, but also at the grocery store checkout line.
 
Candidate A is your man. Like the founders, Libertarians want no standing army. You're no Libertarian.

I love it when people tell me what a real libertarian is. As if there was some handbook we all have to follow. Defense is a legitimate function of the state. And especially in the modern world with instantaneous commincations and modern equipment like tanks, planes, missiles, and such being needed to have a functional military, its not feasible to have no standing army. And if saying that makes me a statist aurhoritarian in your book, well that says a lot more about your book than my actual beliefs.
 
Candidate A is your man. Like the founders, Libertarians want no standing army. You're no Libertarian.

That's laughable on its face. The Founders always maintained a small standing force; there was NEVER, that is, NEVER, a time when the military was "abolished" entirely, as Candidate A wants. Especially not the Navy.

It is not a libertarian -- small-l or big-L -- tenet to abolish the military entirely.

Why don't you figure out what a "Progressive" is first, before you start incompetently lecturing others in what they believe?
 
You could possibly say the Bush Tax Cuts if viewed on singularly on their own measure rather than in the total context of his policies. A few of the market aspects of Medicare Part D have proven somewhat fiscally successful, but as a whole that policy can't really be put forward as an example. But yeah, there's no much to hang your hat on.

The tax cuts are probably his best bet, but when you factor in that there were no matching (at a minimum) cuts to spending and spending in fact went up, it no longer becomes a fiscally conservative policy. So yeah, as you say there isn't much to hang your hat on when it comes to Bush. Which was my original point. When you look at Bush's record, he wasn't "our guy". He just was a guy who happened to have a R next to his name rather than a D.

I do believe such a point DOES exist. I just think its a lot farther off than people like you, and I to a point, would like. While we may consider ourselves pragmatic...realistically we're still more idealistic than the average voter.

Its going to take something massive, and on something that is a hot button issue for the average person, similar to what you just described to finally cause such a choice to occur. Sadly....spending a lot in one way or spending a lot in another way, right now, isn't cutting it for causing that pragmatic nature to be tossed out
.

Yeah, I'd agree that I'm probably more idealistic than the average voter. But is it overly idealistic to expect Republicans to deliver something that is truly fiscally conservative? I don't think the issue with most voters is pragmatism, its apathy and ignorance. They don't care enough to be informed, so they fall for the lies like that the Republicans made "historic" cuts a few years back. They buy the empty rhetoric without ever asking if they follow up on it after they get elected. And they buy into the propaganda that Obama is a far left socialist when in fact on most issues he's governed a lot like a third term of GWB would've looked like.

A pragmatic person would demand SOMETHING from the GOP. Fiscal conservatives have got nothing from them for at least the last 12 years. But so many of us keep acting like the Republicans are our team. To use a sports analogy, it would be like people in Philadephia still cheering for the A's even though the team left town about 60 years ago.

I agree that being tastier than cardboard isn't something to brag about. But it's apparently enough, at least it has been for some time and appears that it will be for some time in the near future. And I agree with you that it'd be more beneficial in the long run for Republicans to take a stand and say "no, wer'e not going along with this anymore". I just don't think its going to happen...and I can't really blame people for it to be honest even if I disagree with it.

I guess that's the point of difference for us. I do blame them. I blame them for being blindly partisan. I blame them for not keeping "their team" accountable. I blame them for not keeping themselves informed and just swallowing any line the party tries to sell them. I blame them for letting the GOP take their votes for granted and never standing up and demanding anything beyond empty rhetoric. I do blame them. And I used to be one of them, but no more.
 
hopefully not
 
I love it when people tell me what a real libertarian is. As if there was some handbook we all have to follow. Defense is a legitimate function of the state. [...]
Well, somebody has to clue you guys in. And there is a handbook... dictionaries and other reference resources, political science theory, and even the -- gasp -- Libertarian Party. Now a Republican can call themself a Libertarian, just like a man can call himself a woman... however, the inquisitive observer can usually tell the difference.

The current military budget is at least 300% more that what we could conceivably need for defense (like, half a trillion $ more :shock:)... therefore a true Libertarian would never try to legitimize that monetary monstrosity, which could only be utilized for imperialist and entangling purposes (again, the antithesis of libertarianism).

There are some Tea Party types out there that want the military budget cut, but I don't think there are any that want it cut down to true libertarian size. Of course, the Sarah Palin (neo-con) faction of the Tea Party want no cuts at tall (have to spread, via force, Christian values to the world and all that). However, truly libertarian folk like Ron Paul are not afraid to take the hatchet to the DoD.

Are you a Ron Paul supporter?
 
That's laughable on its face. The Founders always maintained a small standing force; there was NEVER, that is, NEVER, a time when the military was "abolished" entirely, as Candidate A wants. Especially not the Navy.

It is not a libertarian -- small-l or big-L -- tenet to abolish the military entirely. [...]
You would do well to educate yourself with the positions, policies, and fears of the founders -- for one thing they feared was a standing army (which I noted, which you disputed). I could give you lots of quotes, as well as a Constitutional cite (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 12), but I'd imagine everyone else knows that picture so I will not waste their time.

As to "abolish the military entirely", well, you'll have to take that up with your strawman.
 
Last edited:
Well, somebody has to clue you guys in. And there is a handbook... dictionaries and other reference resources, political science theory, and even the -- gasp -- Libertarian Party. Now a Republican can call themself a Libertarian, just like a man can call himself a woman... however, the inquisitive observer can usually tell the difference.

Implying I'm a Republican loyalist. That's funny. And using the Libertarian Party as the definative measuring stick for all libertarians. That's also funny. The LP is a radical extremist party that demands its members accept radical minarchism as the only acceptable version of libertarianism and it goes far beyond what many libertarian minded people would advocate.

The current military budget is at least 300% more that what we could conceivably need for defense (like, half a trillion $ more :shock:)... therefore a true Libertarian would never try to legitimize that monetary monstrosity, which could only be utilized for imperialist and entangling purposes (again, the antithesis of libertarianism).

Where exactly did I try to defend the current defense budget? I'm all for cuts to the military budget, along with cuts in many other places. I merely said that I was opposed to the fictional stances of Candidate A (disband the entire military) and Candidate B (disband the entire airforce and navy). Nice attempt at a strawman, but better luck next time.

There are some Tea Party types out there that want the military budget cut, but I don't think there are any that want it cut down to true libertarian size. Of course, the Sarah Palin (neo-con) faction of the Tea Party want no cuts at tall (have to spread, via force, Christian values to the world and all that). However, truly libertarian folk like Ron Paul are not afraid to take the hatchet to the DoD.

Are you a Ron Paul supporter?

What is a "true libertarian size" for the military? And how did you, a self described progressive, get appointed as the arbitrator of what is the true and proper doctrine of libertarianism? You know maybe, just maybe, libertarianism is diverse ideology with room for reasonable differences and disagreements among those who fit under that broad banner. Just like liberalism, progressivism, conservativism, and pretty much every other -ism. Libertarians don't have to be in lock step agreement on every issue.

As for Paul, yeah I support Paul. He goes farther than I would in a number of areas, but he represents a crucial change in direction that this country needs.
 
As to "abolish the military entirely", well, you'll have to take that up with your strawman.

You should really try reading the posts you quote. Then again you tried to imply that I'm a Republican hiding under a libertarian name when I've spend most of this thread bashing the Republican's for never living up to the their small government fiscal conservative agenda.

Harshaw said:
there was NEVER, that is, NEVER, a time when the military was "abolished" entirely, as Candidate A wants. Especially not the Navy.

Emphasis mine. Clearly he is referring to my fictional Candidate A
.
 
You should really try reading the posts you quote. [...]
Physician, heal thyself. I was not talking to you in the post that you quoted.
 
Implying I'm a Republican loyalist. That's funny. [...]
If you do not support draconian cuts in the military, you're no Libertarian. That is merely my point, brought upon by your advertised lean (which I'm on record as disputing in general, so as not to make this a personal issue).

As to your lukewarm support for Ron Paul, were I a libertarian, I would find no problem with supporting him wholeheartedly. As a Progressive, I also have lukewarm support for him (which again belies your advertised lean... but again, nothing personal).

And how did you, a self described progressive, get appointed as the arbitrator of what is the true and proper doctrine of libertarianism?
As a self described intelligent observer and student of politics, I appoint myself as arbiter of what is the true and proper doctrine of libertarianism. As a student of logic, I know the logical fallacy in your assertion that I, as a 'non-libertarian', am therefore automatically somehow unqualified to make such an analytical determination.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[1] Historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as a critical individualist social philosophy, aimed at transforming society by reform or revolution, that fundamentally doubts authority.[2] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[3] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

What could be more authoritarian, more likely to produce coercion and violence, than a large, standing military?
 
Last edited:
If you do not support draconian cuts in the military, you're no Libertarian. That is merely my point, brought upon by your advertised lean (which I'm on record as disputing in general, so as not to make this a personal issue).

Define draconian. I'm sure plenty of interventionist hawks would call my ideas draconian, but I suspect you wouldn't. Draconian is in the eye of the beholder. I've heard people call plans that merely slow the rate of increase in government spending to be "draconian". I've heard people all Obama's proposed defense reductions "draconian". I wouldn't consider either to be draconian and I would personally like to see deeper cuts on both fronts.

As to your lukewarm support for Ron Paul, were I a libertarian, I would find no problem with supporting him wholeheartedly. As a Progressive, I also have lukewarm support for him (which again belies your advertised lean... but again, nothing personal).

Lukewarm? Just because I said he occassionally goes too far on some issues? So if I don't line up 100% with Paul, I'm a lukewarm supporter? Few people line up 100% or even 90% with any candidate. I voted for Paul in the 08 primaries and voted Libertarian in the general election. I intend to vote for Paul in this primary and if he's not the nominee, I'll almost certainly be voting third party again. Just because I don't think Ron Paul is the second coming of Christ like some of his supporters does not mean that my support is lukewarm or that I'm not a "true libertarian".

As a self described intelligent observer and student of politics, I appoint myself as arbiter of what is the true and proper doctrine of libertarianism. As a student of logic, I know the logical fallacy in your assertion that I, as a 'non-libertarian', am therefore automatically somehow unqualified to make such an analytical determination.

I never said you were unqualified. I just find it interesting that you are so interested in who is or isn't a "true libertarian" when you yourself are not a libertarian. You have no dog in the debate for ideological purity among libertarians. In fact I question anyone who believes they are the arbitrator of what is "true" libertarianism or any other -ism. Ideologies are not black and white. There are room different degrees under each broad category. Not ever person is a robot who follows the dogma of their given ideology blindly. Sometimes I do disagree with mainstream libertarian thought. Just as I disagree with mainstream conservatism on certain points, mainstream liberalism, and every other ideology. But I'm closest to libertarianism and have priorities and emphasize values from a libertarian lense. If that's not good enough for you or for anyone of any lean, too bad.

What could be more authoritarian, more likely to produce coercion and violence, than a large, standing military?

How about being invaded by a violent coercive authoritarian nation because we don't have a sufficient standing military to deter such an attack? I said it before and I'll say it again, defense is a legitimate function of the state. Do we spend far more than is necessary for defense? Yes. We spend far more thanhis necessary to even project our power and defend our interests overseas. Defense spending should be cut. But I don't want to completely gut the armed forces.

Physician, heal thyself. I was not talking to you in the post that you quoted.

Yeah, so? To use one of your lines, just because your post wasn't addressed to me I'm not qualified to point out the inconsistencies and lack of reading comprehension?
 
You would do well to educate yourself with the positions, policies, and fears of the founders -- for one thing they feared was a standing army (which I noted, which you disputed). I could give you lots of quotes, as well as a Constitutional cite (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 12), but I'd imagine everyone else knows that picture so I will not waste their time.

As to "abolish the military entirely", well, you'll have to take that up with your strawman.

MY strawman? :lamo

Hey, genius -- you're the one who said that as a libertarian, his choice must be Candidate A. Candidate A wanted to abolish the military entirely; Candidate B wanted to cut it down to minimum but not abolish it.

[...] I consider myself to be a pragmatic libertarian. I don't expect mainstream candidates to line up perfectly with my views, even though I'm moderate by many libertarian standards. But at a certain point ideals have to matter. Just being less bad than the other guys becomes meaningless after a certain point. Allow me to paint an extreme example. Candidate A wants to abolish the military entirely. Candidate B just wants to disband the navy and airforce. Measuring them in a vaccuum against each other, Candidate B is more reasonable. But both are still insanely reckless. [...]

Candidate A is your man. Like the founders, Libertarians want no standing army. You're no Libertarian.

I can't help it if you pooched your own post, but once again, you're at your most arrogant just as you're about to get owned.

As always -- figure out what's going on in your OWN head before you decide to lecture someone else about theirs.
 
Last edited:
The Republican Party controlled all three branches from 2001 to 2006, and the federal government only grew under their watch.

That is not exactly true. At the time President Bush took office, the Senate was split 50-50. Then Sen. Jim Jeffords switched from a Republican to an Independent in June 2001 and sided with the Democrats, which controlled the Senate until November 2002.
 
MY strawman? :lamo Hey, genius -- you're the one who said that as a libertarian, his choice must be Candidate A. Candidate A wanted to abolish the military entirely; Candidate B wanted to cut it down to minimum but not abolish it. [...]
Tip: You can't win a point by making stuff up. Candidate B wanted to abolish the navy and the airforce, period. The founders did not fear the navy (it was a blanket constitutional authorization, and could hardly be used to invade and control the citizenry), and of course there was no air force. What the founders feared, which you dispute but fail to argue, is a standing army. Since Candidate A wanted to abolish the military entirely, and Candidate B is apparently fine with the army as it is (huge), then Candidate A is clearly the libertarian choice.

Your strawman was assigning Candidate A's position to me, when I merely chose him as the best choice of the two (logically, as we can see above). My position is that the founders wanted no standing army, or at the very least feared it. You tried to contest that, and I see now that you have wisely abandon that course of action. Still, your attempt to slice and dice my post, as well as the posts of others (your description of Candidate B), and construct a strawman has led, once again, predictably, to failure.

L.O.L. :roll:
 
Tip: You can't win a point by making stuff up. Candidate B wanted to abolish the navy and the airforce, period. The founders did not fear the navy (it was a blanket constitutional authorization, and could hardly be used to invade and control the citizenry), and of course there was no air force. What the founders feared, which you dispute but fail to argue, is a standing army. Since Candidate A wanted to abolish the military entirely, and Candidate B is apparently fine with the army as it is (huge), then Candidate A is clearly the libertarian choice.

Your strawman was assigning Candidate A's position to me, when I merely chose him as the best choice of the two (logically, as we can see above). My position is that the founders wanted no standing army, or at the very least feared it. You tried to contest that, and I see now that you have wisely abandon that course of action. Still, your attempt to slice and dice my post, as well as the posts of others (your description of Candidate B), and construct a strawman has led, once again, predictably, to failure.

L.O.L. :roll:

Uh, no.

You told PC that as a libertarian, HIS choice should be Candidate A. That is right in my post; YOU quoted it; if you think I was assigning it to YOU, you either can't read or you're lying yet again.

You said it's the "Libertarian" choice. You're wrong. THAT'S what I said. And also as I said, the Founders NEVER abolished the Army in entirety, and NO libertarian tenet requires it. It would help if you actually understood that.
 
Back
Top Bottom