Serious About Limiting Government?

The GOP takes on big government, again.


After the 1994 mid-term elections, Republicans took over the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades. In the wake of President Bill Clinton's failed attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system, they vowed to cut government down to size. 

Were they serious? That was the question Rick Henderson asked in "Sobriety Test" (January 1995). Henderson outlined five areas where Republicans could prove their commitment to smaller government: tax fairness, budget reform, entitlement reform, spending cuts, and regulatory restraint. 

A few years later, Republican members of Congress worked with Clinton to reform the welfare system. Government spending dropped as a percentage of the economy for the rest of Clinton's presidency, and annual federal deficits briefly shrank to the point of nonexistence. No tax overhaul materialized, although in 2003 Clinton's Republican successor, George W. Bush, reduced marginal income tax rates for everyone. 

But any foray into small-government seriousness was temporary at best. Under Bush, Republicans in Congress expanded Medicare, the nation's biggest entitlement program; let federal spending and deficits soar; and failed to pass Social Security reform.

These days the budget situation is messier than ever, so it's no surprise to hear Republicans once again talking about the need to cut spending and reform entitlements. Are they serious this time? 

Some signs suggest they might be. After a year of campaigning against the sequester—a set of across-the-board spending reductions included in the 2011 debt deal—most House Republicans indicated in early 2013 that they would rather let it happen. "We think these sequesters will happen," House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said on Meet the Press in January, "because the Democrats have opposed our efforts to replace those cuts with others, and they've offered no alternatives."

Other signs suggest any commitment to spending cuts may be illusory. "I don't like the sequester," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters as he asked President Obama for ideas on how to replace it with different cuts. Meanwhile, Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) offered a replacement idea of his own: higher taxes. 

NEXT: Nine Killed in Bombing of Campaign Offices in Pakistan

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The only reason that should be in the form of a question is because you are playing Jeopardy. The Republicans play "limited govt" just like Democrats play racial politics - to keep a specific faction out of play.

    1. I'll take "Rhetorical Questions to Which the Answer Is No" for $200, Alex.

      1. I'll take "Swords" for $400, Alex.

        1. Dolly Parton?

          1. Famous Titles, Titles!

      2. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job Ive had. Last Tuesday I bought a gorgeous Lancia Straton from earning $4331 this - 5 weeks past. I began this 7-months ago and right away started to earn at least $69, per-hr. I use this website,,

  2. Nope, not Serious.

  3. Are they serious this time?

    Of course they are. How could you even ask that question?

  4. NPR does story on progressive Kansans with a case of the sads

    Kansan journalist Jason Probst says the Kansas he knows has disappeared.

    "The great state of Kansas passed away on March 31, 2013 after a long and difficult battle with extremism," he wrote in an editorial for The Hutchinson News.

    His faux obituary, lamenting Kansas' embrace of conservatism, went viral. Tens of thousands of people read it. Many were fellow Kansans who wrote to Probst to say they, too, were disturbed by their state's dramatic swing to the right.

    Along with much of the country, Kansas took a right turn in 2010, and now its conservative supermajority in the Legislature hopes to set an example for other red states.

    1. Awwww. Poor progressives.

      What miserable, sad, useless people.

      1. I like how the reporter claims abolitionism as "progressive".

        1. I also question his argument that Kansas took a right turn in 2010.

          2000: Bush won Kansas with 58% of the vote.

          2004: Bush won Kansas with 62% of the vote.

          2008: McCain won Kansas with 56% of the vote

          2012: Romney won Kansas with 60% of the vote

          Where's the right turn?

          1. At the legislature level.

            At the federal level, team red is useless aside from a few bright lights but at the state level it's a different story whether people here want to admit it or not. The states under GOP control are seeing serious reform. They're not full libertarian by any stretch but it's real change.

          2. In the journalist's mind.

            Having been a long-time resident of Kansas (since I was five) the state's always been conservative...even the Democrats are generally of the fiscally conservative bent. The real split in the GOP there was always between the social conservatives and the Republicans who don't want to get involved in religion and social issues.

            The current governor, Sam Brownback, is very much a social conservative and was a Bush Republican (and he's kind of a petty, vindictive asshole to boot...actually, no "kind of" about it), so any policies he backs, even if they're traditionally "Kansan" tend to get blasted by their association with him. Personally I don't see him as anywhere near fiscally conservative enough because he pays lip service to cuts but does very little cutting, but he still loves to pound the podium about abortion, Jesus and all of the other things that moderates in Kansas generally don't want their state government involved in.

            That's where the "rightward swing" perception comes from...Brownback's social agenda. If he'd stay out of that and focus on the economics, he'd probably win more converts...but that's not something he's capable of doing because he thinks the social conservatism will someday catapult him into the White House (which will never happen).

            1. This is also not a new thing, by the way. This has been going on in Kansas for the last 10-15 years, the social conservative vs. socially uninvolved schism. It got really nasty about a decade ago when the social moderates ended up getting control of the legislature from the social conservatives...and the social moderates chose to burn all of their fundraising donor lists and sabotage their own party out of spite.

              I knew a few of the social conservative crowd from when I worked some state level campaigns and to be honest most of them were only a step above trailer trash. None of them really understood or cared about budgets or fiscal was just Jesus and abortion and banning titty bars because they didn't like the idea that people somewhere in Kansas were looking at naked women for money.

              I suppose it sounds like I'm caricaturing their position, but honestly I'm not. They honestly did not care about fiscal issues, just the social stuff.

        2. Kansas has a long progressive tradition. The earliest Kansans fought off slaveholders to make their territory a free state (it was, indeed, a bloody fight). No woman had ever been elected to public office in the U.S. before Susanna Salter became mayor of Argonia.

          Neither of these things are progressive. The first woman to get an electoral college vote was from the Libertarian party. Does that make the LP 'progressive?'

          As for fighting off slaveholders, how would they have done that if modern progressives were trying to take their guns away? I like when progressives try to claim as part of the 'progressive tradition' things that modern progressives would be opposed to.

          1. Yeah, abolishing slavery was all about the left, you see, because the Republicans were leftists. Totally.

            1. Good things are leftwing, bad things are rightwing. Racism is bad, therefore it is objectively rightwing. See how that works?

              1. Good things are leftwing, bad things are rightwing. Racism is bad, therefore it is objectively rightwing. See how that works?

                Snarky, but this is truly how nearly every leftist I have ever met constructs their worldview.

                The few who don't, are freakish, horrifying sociopaths.

          2. Quite correct. Progressivism came about as a literal reaction against the dominant liberal social and economic trends of the late nineteenth century. The very word was a self conscious effort to deny that their aggressive disdain towards liberals was reactionary, but an embrace of a science that proved the racial superiority of Northern Europeans over all others, the inferiority of women to men, and the half hazard nature of free markets could not work without the guiding hand of an elite cadre. All three elements live on in affirmative action programs, the victimology of collectivist feminism, and Keynesianism and the Fed driven banking system.

    2. Now, Brownback has the most conservative legislature in state history. With the conservatives in full control, Brownback is leading the charge, and he says he wants Kansas to be on a "glide path" to zero income tax as a prescription for economic renewal.


      1. NOT ZERO INCOME TAX! People will keep more of their money! THE HORROR!

        1. If people don't pay for the privilege to work in the great state of Kansas, how will the government pay for all the things it should do because I don't want to?

    3. "The great state of Kansas passed away on March 31, 2013 after a long and difficult battle with extremism," he wrote in an editorial for The Hutchinson News.

      Didn't lefty concern troll Thomas Frank pretty much fellate the shit out this notion with that whiny book of his...."What the Fuck is up with Kansas": a story of how this punchable face got me in all sorts of trouble in one of the flatter states?

    4. DeLong's argument in that article is so stupid. How does reducing taxes decrease wages? Or conversely, how does increasing taxes raise (real) wages?

      1. How does reducing taxes decrease wages?

        Well the porcine DeLong works for the University of California system (I don't know if his compensation is funded by endowment...perhaps something from the swine producers cooperative) and in his role as a paid shill for the expansive state and central banking an economist he can connect the dots from a tax cut eventually leading to fewer Oreos for him.

      2. You know, it probably is true.

        Reason being, the way he would like it, the state would pay 10-20% of the population it would employ obscene wages double or triple what everyone else gets, and that will raise the statistic for the average.

    5. If Republicans have gone extremist, yet continue to win seats, doesn't that imply that the electorate has moved to the right?

      Anyway, the analysis is wrong. The country is becoming more libertarian, and has been since the late-70s and the fall of communism. Traditional conservatives have given ground on lifestyle issues, and libtards have are more fiscally conservative than ever (the gov't budgets are only bigger because of the growth in the pre-existing entitlement programs. Discretionary spending has been falling and will continue to).

      1. I'm not at all convinced reductions in discretionary spending isn't simply the result of entitlement growth rather than some nebulous philosophical sea-change. If we're already bumping up against the upward bound for tax revenues, Laffer-style, isn't the easier explanation that entitlement spending squeezes out discretionary? I'll agree that both wings of the State give ground on certain fronts, but I wonder if anyone in the 70s would have predicted the extent to which government intrusion took shape and the granularity of its efforts.

        I'm probably overstating my meager case, but I think any gains by one party marks the swing of the pendulum away from the other party, rather than a philosophical change of heart.

      2. What difference does it make whether the source of the spending driving the unsustainable debt load is from defense, entitlements, or the government buying lots and lots of puppies, the result is the same. Actually, it's much worse that the growth comes from entitlements because they are virtually impossible to get rid of. I'd also question whether real discretionary spending has actually shrunk, or whether it has shrunk nominally or relative to the budget, which is now double the size it was when Clinton left office, driven mostly by entitlement growth. Remember, reductions in the rate of growth of spending aren't actually reductions.

    6. Let me guess - all the Kansan's who commented were from Knasas City. The rest of the state having to work for a living and not able to spend time listening to NPR.

    1. Amazing. McCain actually has some comic chops! Having Spacey totally in character the whole time was great, as was the Big Gulp meme.

      "House of Cards" is a pretty cool show that can get pretty down and dirty for a TV program. The scene where Spacey goes down on the naked young reporter chick, and she climaxes as he tells her it is her father doing her, is about as racy as anything I've ever seen intended for wide audiences.

      1. The scene where Spacey goes down on the naked young reporter chick, and she climaxes as he tells her it is her father doing her, is about as racy as anything I've ever seen intended for wide audiences.

        Haven't gotten around to watching it yet, but now that you mention incest...

      2. Well it's from Netflix, not TV. So they have more freedom to be creative.

    2. The show may be good but that was hard to watch. Other than Spacey (whom I like) there was this river of douche-bags, all of whom should be wearing orange jump suits. Seeing McCain and Bloomberg just makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth.

    3. Once I found out David Sirota of Salon bawled his little Team Blue eyes out because Francis Underwood is a *gasp* Southern Democrat, I figured I had to see it.

      It's not a bad show. Not as good as "Yes, Minister" but it does amply portray what an incestuous cesspool of money and power D.C. is.

  5. Prairie Populism is dead?


    1. In Canada Saskatchewan, our Kansas, turfed the NDP-but the party replacing it has very few policy differences.

  6. Are they serious this time?

    Short answer: No

    Long Answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

    1. The GOP as a whole doesn't support cutting the size and power of government any more than an alcoholic supports prohibition. But if you promise to buy an alcoholic a bottle, he'll be glad to sign a petition calling for prohibition.

  7. How many readers have heard of their representatives "bringing money to our district" for some cause they think worthy? Need I ask where that money came from. "We have met the enemy and they are us"----Pogo

  8. Illustration: A young boy was killed by an auto while crossing from the parking lot to the St Louis Zoo. Roy Blunt, our GOP Senator, got a million to build a very attractive pedestrian overpass to save future lives of our visitors. Where did that million come from? Worthy purpose, yes. Flawed solution? You decide.

    1. I took the dogs for a run the other day on forest service land. I went past a little pullout picnic area and noticed they had built a fence around a small stand of aspens in the center of the area. It was a nice, 3 high, pole fence. It got me thinking. Some asshole decided that small stand of aspens needed to be protected, (from what I'm not sure) and spent $1000+ in materials and another $1000 paying someone to build it. $2000 (I'm estimating) of my money, because someone got a wild hair up their ass over a few trees. Then you think about how often the same shit happens and you wonder why the budget is $3.5T/yr.


      1. I am somewhat amazed you still have access to that land. Somewhere an alert has been tripped to make sure it is made inaccessible so some enviroturd can have a boner about wild land he will never ever see.

      2. It's almost like they have no idea how to economize, and the concept of economizing has never occured to them.

      3. and spent $1000+ in materials and another $1000 paying someone to build it. $2000 (I'm estimating) of my money,

        You left out the "it's a government project so multiply cost X 3" factor. That makes it $8,000 using the government multiplication tables.

    2. I'm sure that million dollars went to some very needy constractors.

  9. The GOP is serious about trying to increase their political power.

    If hyping limited government will help them do that, then that's what they'll hype. But as soon as they get there...

    Real change isn't going to happen within the GOP until it happens in the hearts and minds of registered Republican voters. It isn't about what the GOP does--it's all about what our mom and dad and friends and coworkers think.

    1. I prefer to leap over the unwashed masses. I think the Ronulan infiltration does just that. The proles will fall in line.

    2. Exactly right -- saying "less government" gives Republican voters a warm fuzzy, but cutting anything in particular is unacceptable to them.

      Except maybe foreign aid. But Democrats want to cut that too.

      1. Except they did Vote for the sequester and when Obama did an about face and tried to cancel it the Republican's stuck with it.

  10. According to this article black turnout rates were at historic levels in 2012, and actually surpassed white turnout rates. Here's the interesting part:

    Had people voted last November at the same rates they did in 2004, when black turnout was below its current historic levels, Republican Mitt Romney would have won narrowly, according to an analysis conducted for The Associated Press.

    Hmmm. This makes me think that the idea that demographics inherently favor Democrats may be a bit overblown. I doubt you can expect that level of black turnout for someone not named Barack Obama, in which case the GOP as constituted is still completely viable at the presidential level.

    News of the GOPs demise may have been exaggerated.

    1. I doubt you can expect that level of black turnout for someone not named Barack Obama,

      Thus, look for Michelle in '16!

    2. Another interesting thing I noticed when I looked at state data after the election is that, despite all the talk about how Hispanics cost the GOP the election, Obama still would have won in the electoral college even if not a single Hispanic voted (Romney would have won in the popular vote). You could throw in Asians, and it also wouldn't change a thing. Also, Romney failed to win a couple swing states where basically all he needed to do to win was win the white vote (Iowa, New Hampshire), which he failed to do in those states.

      1. What do you expect? Romney told the Blue Collar White Working Class to go fuck themselves. Their staying home is what cost Romney the election.

        1. As far as I am concerned, the GOP establishment, by actively supporting the nomination of Romney, told me to go fuck myself. Told me again, I should say, given that they told me the same thing when they supported McCain and Bush and Dole and Bush the Elder.

        2. Was white turnout unusually low (and low enough to compensate for Obama's MOV). Also, how did Romney of all candidates do that? He took a hardline on immigration and was constantly talking about a trade war with China

    3. News of the GOPs demise may have been exaggerated.

      TEAM Blue has been trying to talk TEAM Red into the grave since Clinton beat H.W. Bush.

      Wishful thinking is wishful.

      1. Long before that. It's the American adaptation of the Marxist historical dialectic.

        1. Considering how that played out for the Marxists I am mildly optimistic.

          1. Considering how that played out for the Marxists I am mildly optimistic.

            Considering how it played out for Marxists in Europe, I'm not.

    4. When Clinton was forced to reform welfare as we know it and admit that the era of big government was over, didn't that spell the end of the Democratic party?

    5. I doubt you can expect that level of black turnout for someone not named Barack Obama

      Especially once they're through with all the VOTER SUPRESHUN!!!

      1. You know, for all that 'voter suppression' the GOP has been doing the last few years, black voting rates have gotten awfully high. They must have REALLY been suppressing black voters in 2004. That's the only explanation.

  11. lol, the GOP will go along with whoever pays them the most lol.

  12. Sequesterpocalypse

    Dozens of air shows that draw tens of thousands of people and generate millions of dollars for local economies have been cancelled this year after the military grounded its jet and demonstration teams because of automatic federal budget cuts.

    For years, the biggest draws at air shows have been the military's two elite jet teams, the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels and the U.S. Air Force's Thunderbirds, and their intricate stunts. The armed services also have provided F-16, F-18 and F-22 fighter jets and the U.S. Army Parachute Team, known as the Golden Knights. All the teams were grounded as of April 1 to save money, and the military also dramatically curtailed its help with ground displays of various aircraft.


    Many air shows, including those in Martinsburg and Indianapolis, benefit charities. They also generate millions of dollars in tourism, benefiting hotels, rental car companies and restaurants. Economic impact studies indicate the shows are worth $1 billion to $2 billion nationwide, Cudahy said.

    We had better put Krugabe on suicide watch.

    1. Eliminating solo performances by the A-10, which provides air support for ground forces, and the F-16 and F-15E, which are capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground combat, is expected to save the Air Force $15.5 million and allow about 970 training flights that otherwise would have been canceled. The cost savings include fuel and travel costs for the pilots and their maintenance crews, among other things. It's unclear if the teams will perform again next year.

      Why does Paulie Krugnuts want to diminish the military readiness of our armed forces? Why does Paulie think that 970 training flights for our airmen should be sacrificed on the altar of public amusement? WHY DOES PAUL KRUGMAN HATE THE TROOPS?

    2. We had better put Krugabe on suicide watch.

      Is there someplace I can sign up!?

      If Paulie is going to cast off this mortal coil I want to be there when they break the champagne bottle on his casket and slide the clown prince of economics into his final resting place.

      1. Live feed please.

    3. This is parody, no? Like the Friedman column generator, right?

    4. Or don't, because he'd be doing all of us a favor.

    5. You obviously haven't read Krugman today. He's in particularly Liberalnista form today:

      "Knaves, Fools, and Me (Meta)

      One criticism I face fairly often is the assertion that I must be dishonest ? I must be cherry-picking my evidence, or something ? because the way I describe it, I'm always right while the people who disagree with me are always wrong. And not just wrong, they're often knaves or fools. How likely is that?

      But may I suggest, respectfully, that there's another possibility? Maybe I actually am right, and maybe the other side actually does contain a remarkable number of knaves and fools."


      Yep, that's right. Krugman is right and anyone disagreeing with him is a knave and a fool.

      1. But may I suggest, respectfully, that there's another possibility? Maybe I actually am right, and maybe the other side actually does contain a remarkable number of knaves and fools.

        I would like to point out THIS IS NOT THE WAY A SCIENTIST THINKS. If you wanted any more evidence that Krugman is not in the least bit an honest scientist, as his drooling, sycophantic fans try to claim, this paragraph proves the point.

        Can you imagine a legitimate scientist, faced with legitimate criticism, ignoring the criticism and simply claiming that he is always right?

        1. Can you imagine a legitimate scientist, faced with legitimate criticism, ignoring the criticism and simply claiming that he is always right?

          I dunno, a lot of "climate scientists" do just that.

        2. It's also worth pointing out that social "science" isn't really "science", which might be why Kruggy isn't much of a "scientist".

    6. Great, let's privatize them.
      Why the fuck is teh military in the entertainment business?
      Sell the fucking Blue Angels to whoever it is that owns Icecapades.

    7. How many people would have to be demobbed to save the amount of money being "saved" by not having air shows?

  13. Depends on which wing of the GOP. I think the GOP is as serious about it as it has been in the last 25 years. I also think the evangelical crowd favors much more limited government than it did 15 years ago, when Bush was able to make his case for compassionate conservatism.

    Ideological seriousness and political expedience are often at odds, but I think there will be some good opportunities to get Libertarian-leaning candidates elected in 2014 and 2016, and I don't think big government Republicans are going to fare well in the coming election cycles.

  14. Media Matters for America, fond of criticizing Fox for being misleading, warns America about deranged conspiracy theorist Judge Andrew Napolitano.

    Because they won't stand to have an authentic civil libertarian on Fox. Only the drone loving punditry on MSNBC can claim that mantle!

    1. I like the sinister music softly playing in the background while Napolitano talks.

      But remember kids, Media Matters is on the side of the angels and Faux News is of the devil.

    2. I'm not going to watch that. Anyone wanna give a summary of Napolitano's 'conspiracies'? Is Waco now a conspiracy theory?

      1. The federal government committed mass-murder that day. I'm not sure what's at all debatable about that.

      2. It's a series of edited clips taken out of context.

        First he's talking to someone about gold and whether or not the US government would go after someone who has too much of it (and that's just crazy, right?

        Then its just a random series of clips that range from why cops shouldn't be allowed to test your blood content and some stuff about 9/11 and Benghazi.

    3. Is he actually a truther, as they claim?

      Anyway, few of the clips even have anything to do with "conspiracy"

  15. A few GOPers want to reduce government size; some want the government to grow slower than under the Democrats; and then there's the others.

  16. Um No? Though you wouldn't be able to tell if you lived in a progressive bubble.

  17. American is mad because the Republican Party isn't working hard enough to conform to the Progressive caricature of them.

    What color is your flag, Comrade?

  18. Just got back from the range. Broke in not one, not two, not three, but four first time shooters. Only had the one creepy asshole leer at them because they're girls. That's so fucking annoying, really pisses me off.

    Almost as much as the total lack of .22 pissed me off. So the .22 pistol stayed in the case. Then my revolver locked up because I haven't actually cleaned it in a while. So we ended up running 200 rounds through the 9mm. So I need to give it a quick wipe and lube.

    1. Ya I've noticed that some ladies are hesitant at the range because they feel like they are being judged. It's pretty much in their heads, but leering schleps don't help.

      1. Dude, this guy literally stared at them when we were walking out, muttering "nice" to himself.

        Fucking hell dipshit, get the fuck off my side.

  19. The only difference between the two major political parties in the US is: One walks leftward, while the other runs leftward.

    When a US citizen votes, they are only voting for the speed at which things are going to go leftward.

  20. Krugman is right and anyone disagreeing with him is a knave and a fool.

    Well, duh.

  21. One thing I have learned by observing the sequestration debate for the past few months is just how vast and powerful the lobbying apparatus for more spending really is.

    Despite the fact that Americans saw their taxes go up on Jan 1, and thus had to cut back on their own budgets, and despite the fact that there really was no popular outcry against sequestration, the spin machine continues apace, completely detached from whether the public gives a shit or not. And judging by the reactions of congress and the media, they've bought into it. You get this bizarre impression that Congress really does feel some sort of pressure to "do something" about the sequester, even though there is no visible force doing the pressuring. There are no crowds of angry Americans protesting in the streets. Thus the only plausible source for this pressure must be K street. And K street is lobbying both directly and by manipulating the media.

    1. It's just cronyism all the way down.

    2. This makes me glad for the internet and the Tea Party. As flawed as the TP is, at least it creates some turbulence for The Machine.

  22. There are at least 3 Republicans serious about limiting the size and scope of government. Their names are Paul, Amash, and Massie.

    Outside of that, bwwahahhaaahahhaa!

    1. I think there's a few more, such as Cruz.

  23. "I don't like the sequester," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)

    Listen to the white brother in the government agreeing with the black brother in the government.

    We're all brothers now. Broke, but brothers.

  24. Re: American,

    I've known many people who very angry with the direction the party is going on immigration.

    An who also forget their verbs, I fancy.

  25. Anyone else suspect that 'American' might be the reincarnation of White Indian? Can we please ban this retard?

    1. White American? Now that's a nightmare.

      1. Don't you see how the EVILS of the agricultural city-state have let the MEXICANS move here and degrade the environment?

        /White American

        1. I do indeed understand, if you replace "MEXICANS" with "MEN".

    2. The possibility has come up, and while I wouldn't be shocked, I don't think it's her. American comes off as someone who legitimately believes the stuff he says, and if it is Mary, then she has done an extremely good (and creepy) job of impersonating a racist, sexist, nativist white nationalist PUA

    3. Banish the heretics!

      --Radical individualist

      1. You realize you're supporting the racist troll now, correct Tony? You sure you want to die on this hill?

        1. You sure you want to die on this hill?

          Man, how many lives does Tony have? Because he's certainly died on many, MANY hills already. I would find it hilarious if he added "defending white supremacist" to that list though.

        2. Freedom isn't pretty.

          Why do you guys always think your radical individualist utopia will be particularly pleasant for you?

          1. You're the biggest idiot in the universe. This is a private website. If someone comes in spewing racist nonsense, obviously Reason has the right to remove him, just as you have the right to remove someone from your property.

            You are the dumbest person to ever exist in the history of mankind. If someone drilled a hole in my skull and poured acid into my brain, I would still be smarter than you, you smarmy dipshit.

      2. If libertarians aren't willing to let the Klan burn crosses on their private property than clearly they are hypocrites!

        1. This is your property?

  26. Yeah, right. It's over Johnny. It's too far gone to ever change.

  27. I agree along with you. This post is actually inspiring. Nice post and many types of a person tell you is up to mynet date as well as really enlightening, i mynet sohbet must book mark the actual web page in order to can come right here just as before to study anyone, as you've performed a great employment

  28. Thank you very much

  29. ays the budget situation is messier than ever, so it's no ? surprise

  30. presidency, and annual federal deficits briefly shrank to the point

  31. Republican members of Congress worked with Clinton to reform the

  32. of Congress worked with Clinton to reform the welfare system

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.