You won't be allowed to collect unemployment unless you own a hybrid at least, although the administration would prefer you drove a Chevy Volt or possibly one of those highly efficient and popular algae burning engines the President just invented.

What is wrong with that is that nothing...I repeat nothing is more important than what the talking head has to say.

Yep, and Clinton left office about 8 seconds before the tech bubble exploded. If nothing Obama has done in his 3.5 years is his fault, then the tech bubble crash certainly wasn't W's fault.

esteem us.

It takes forever for the government to do anything, that is part of the reason why it is so inefficient. We have been paying them (Egypt) for many years now in the hopes that they will like us better. That worked to a certain extent, the Mubarak regime didn't go out of its way to give us a hard time. Now that the regime has changed and the new leaders seem less pliable, you would think that we'd use that money as a stick to try and get them back in line. But, I'm sure the logic used by politicians to justify further payments goes something like..."if we take the money away they will hate us even more!!!11@!!" Never mind that they seem determined to prove to somebody (the Egyptian people? the rest of the arab world?) how little they...

Yeah, I've been saying this for several years now. One of the best things the government could do would be to just say no more new laws for the next 5 years.

I can see the appeal of taking that course of action. But I would still have to vote for Romney. I think that the majority of Republicans and many Independents are in favor of a lot of libertarian type reforms at the moment. Tax reform and simplification, curtailing regulatory overreach, getting our safety nets on a sound financial footing, etc. Because of that I think that Romney or any of the other Republicans running would be forced to at least take steps in that direction. An Obama victory on the other hand would be taken by Obama as a referrendum on his current policies and encourage him to double down on his leftist big-government agenda.

What I have always taken away from what Ron Paul says about foreign interventions is that he isn't strictly against them. What he demands though is that a declaration of war be made, according to the laws set forth in the Constitution, prior to the US getting involved. He wouldn't invade somewhere and ask permission later, as both Bush and Obama have done.

Most Libertarians are comitted to a strong national defense (as Ron Paul calims to be). This is an issue they don't have a problem with. National defense is provided for in the Constitution as one of the few things that the Federal Government is required to do. As for Iran, I'm less certain of what would happen there. Israel doesn't really want to move without our backing and Obama has been leaning on them not to move. I suspect Ron Paul would tell them it isn't the USAs place to tell them what to do, and if they want to bomb Iran they should go ahead and do it.

This is what our country doesn't understand about libertarianism. Just because someone says, "I don't want the Federal Government to do X", doesn't mean that they aren't in favor of X, it just means that the Federal Government shouldn't be the one to do it. We have become completely dependant on government for virtually everything. When the average person perceives what they think of as unfairness or unjustness, their first impulse is to look to government for a solution. They don't say, "Why don't we do something about this," they say, "Why doesn't the governmnent do something about this?"