That statement is just as silly as your contention that all candidates on the ballot have an equal chance, as if voting were done by a random number generation program, or by rolling 20 sided dice.
Your statement about Ron Paul proves my point. Who is he? I know nothing about him. If I barely know the name, how is someone who only gets their news from Peter Jennings to decide to vote for him? Sadly, those are the types that make up the majority of our population. You are trying to run a lame colt with an over-weight rider in the KY Derby; I won't bet on that horse!
If you had the sense to bore from within, and at least help to prevent further decay of our rights we'd at least hold the line against the Socialists. For now that is the best we can hope for. The Universities, public schools, and the press are all in the Socialist camp - they took over our infrastructure slowly and carefully. Yet, you think the LP can get total power and change everything overnight? How? Did they find a magic wand? Do you remember the budget fight of '95, and how Newt and the Republicans were tared and feathered in the press - with their view never being represented? Guess what? They were trying to reduce the size and scope of the Feds. Remember "Block Grants" for school lunches? What was the constant press line? Wasn't it starving children? When someone proposes increasing a department by less then twice the rate of inflation, it is called a drastic cut, and we'll be kicking old people out on the streets. Will your LP magic wand nuter the press? Will it make them report both sides of an issue fairly? I think not!
I'd be happy with a static fed budget; a freeze on spending. One of the things you fail to take into account in your model is inflation. Holding to current levels is a cut. I'd love more than that, I'd love to see many fedral programs eleminated, others drastically scaled back. Heck; were I to live in a political fantisy world like you do I'd be demanding a complete and total return to the Constitution, as written by the founders and legally ammended. However, I have enough understanding of reality to know that it won't happen in my lifetime, much less overnight (unless there is a revolution).
The reason I don't respond to all your points is that I can only deal with so much illogic at a time. Virtually all your points come from a firm foundation in fantisy. Fantisy is fine to a point. I often fantisize about winning the lottery, but I recognize that it is a fantisy as I know the odds are against me. You think all odds are even - it's not that simple, either in gambling or in politics. In order to win at either you need to give yourself the best odds possible. In politics, that means using an established party for your own ends (ie. bore from within). Let's say 7% of the population is Libertarian, if they offered to join the Republican party, don't you think that the Republicans would welcome them? Oh, wait, sorry; I forgot who I was talking to!
I sincerely hope that you are not representitive of the LP, since I'd love to see them get some representation and power. I think that we have a historic chance to eliminate the D/S party from power in the next 8 years. However continued use of the term "Republicrats" won't help elimiate the Socialists.
As I stated, you are living in a fantisy world where you don't let reality penetrate. This saddens me as I know you are not stupid. If you'd just let a bit of reality penetrate into your fantisy world you might be worth talking to.
Oh, btw, since it seems you are pro gun, but don't belong to the NRA because they have some grounding in the reality of politics, maybe you should look into JPPFO. Oh, sorry again; I forgot. Even though JPPFO is similar to the LP in that they have no chance of attaining real power, and are somewhat idealistic; you'd probably find one or two things in their platform that don't fit into your fantisy world.
MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/
I'm not suprised that you don't know who Ron Paul is. Anyone who is genuinely interested in smaller government would make an effort to find out which candidates are really trying to reduce government so they could support that person.
The notion that Republicans are holding back the tide of socialism is laughable. No Republican president has presided over a decrease in federal spending since the 1920's. Republicans have been promising to abolish the Dept. of Education and NEA for 20 years but have repeatedly increased funding for it. Republicans held a majority of seats in Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Since Reagan became president the federal budget has grown from $600 billion to $2.1 trillion and the federal government has spent $30 trillion. The national debt is $6 trillion (officially, although I suspect the real amount is higher).
George W. Bush has yet to veto any legislation since taking office and with his own party in control of Congress it's unlikely he'll do so. According to economist Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth, social welfare programs under Bush have grown by $96 billion in just two years, versus $51 billion under six years of Clinton. Republicans have been on a spending spree since Bush took office. They've wasted hundreds of billions on pork. You can see some of it on this list.
I watched the debates between Bush and Gore. When Gore proposed a taxpayer funded prescription drug program Bush should've pointed out that government has no place paying for prescription drugs with taxpayers' money. But, instead he proposed a government program of his own. On national TV Bush said that no American should pay more than a third of his income to the federal government (but up to and including a third is ok). Bush and Ashcroft have said they support an individual's right to keep and bear arms while supporting stricter enforcement of existing gun-control (but not the repeal of any gun-control).
You said you'd like to see federal programs eliminated and others scaled back but you don't expect that to happen in your lifetime. And why should you? You vote for people who expand existing programs and create new ones. Keep it up and you'll meet your expectations.
The federal budget doesn't need to grow to keep up with inflation. Inflation is caused by the Federal Reserve which needs to be abolished. Money is created when the Fed loans money to government or to banks (which loan it to consumers). The money is created on printing machines or via electronic bookkeeping entries. When there's more money in proportion to the available goods and services the purchasing power of the dollar declines and the costs of goods and services rise to compensate. The Constitution states that our money must be Gold or Silver. Paper money is not Constitutional.
Anyone who is serious about gun-rights would be wise to cancel their membership and never send any money to the NRA. The NRA is a group of sellouts and compromisers. The NRA supports stricter enforcement of gun-control and has even endorsed some gun-control legislation. I suggest joining Gun Owners of America or JPFO instead. They don't compromise.
The question you need to ask yourself is, "Do you want smaller government?" If the answer to that question is 'yes' then the first thing you must do is to stop supporting the people who are making government bigger. You will never get smaller government any other way.