Ron Paul will have at least 9 deligates at the convention

[_JS]

What Ron Paul has done, in my opinion, is separate the self-proclaimed libertarians of the Republican Party from the real life libertarian activists, who truly believe in the principles that Paul espouses.

Indeed. The people of the Republican Party have said pretty plainly that they, for the most part, reject the notions of smaller government.

The reality is that there is a tiny percentage of folks who are libertarians, but most conservatives wholeheartedly denounce much of that agenda. They used it when it was useful, but they sure as hell won't let the libertarians run the party any time in the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't say "tiny". Small maybe. And I think it might be a mistake to assume that everyone who voted for Ron Paul represents the whole of libertarians in this country. There are many libertarians who don't like Ron Paul for one reason or another.

"Tiny" was probably an unfair adjective.

I think that the question is one of Capitalism's direction. Neoliberalism is clearly the economics of choice for today. It is a corporatist system that many people are convinced is the greatest thing since man discovered fire. Unlike Fascism, neoliberalism basically cuts one side from the triangle - the Trade Unions. It is a government + corporate partnership of interests. It is predominant amongst both parties and I don't see it being replaced either by libertarian advocates for laissez faire or by socialist advocates for either syndicalism or communism.

[BT]

And you say the same about those who bash communists? socialists?

Interestingly, I've never seen that.

Seems fairly obvious, that while bashing opposing views you reveal your own biases, background and influences.  Do you disagree?

[_JS]

And you say the same about those who bash communists? socialists?

Interestingly, I've never seen that.

Seems fairly obvious, that while bashing opposing views you reveal your own biases, background and influences.  Do you disagree?

Do I hide the fact that I'm a socialist?

[BT]

Do I hide the fact that I'm a socialist?

Absolutely not. That's all part of the revelation.

[Universe Prince]

Of course Government was the proper instrument to end slavery. Government has the power to either legalize or criminalize such actions. They also have enforcement powers.

They do? Huh. Well that explains a lot. (Hey, look, more sarcasm.)

Are you saying ending slavery was a bad thing?

No, but I might be saying that you're an ass. Am I saying that ending slavery was a bad thing? That is a stupid question. No, of course I'm not saying that. In point of fact, I came nowhere even remotely close to saying that. So asking the question was asinine, though I know you meant it as a dig.

I'm sure you picked up on this, but (just so there is no confusion with the readers who thought your question was clever) I was scoffing at your suggestion that there was a government program to end slavery. But hey, if thinking there was one helps you sleep at night, more power to ya.

[BT]

No, but I might be saying that you're an ass.

Brilliant!

I'm sure you picked up on this, but (just so there is no confusion with the readers who thought your question was clever) I was scoffing at your suggestion that there was a government program to end slavery.

Well let's see . There was a war,  and an Emancipation Proclamation and passage of an amendment.

All government sanctioned.

Did the fed overstep their bounds?

[Plane]

Ending slavery started with the people and when there was a lot of people devoted to it he government fell in to line with them , unfortunately there as a large region populated with people who had not caught up to that progressive thinking.

[_JS]

I'm thoroughly confused about the psychology of this thread, but I do know that Lincoln came into office with a plan that was much longer term in thinking. He was hoping to purchase emancipation of all slaves over a 40 year period ending in 1900. Circumstances caused the more immediate release of the slaves and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Plane is correct that people, especially Quakers and also some foreign pressure pushed for abolition.

What isn't being mentioned here and considering it is Black History Month I think it is especially appropriate, is that yes the slaves were freed, but it took another 100 years for African-Americans to gain anything resembling equal rights. Add to that the fact that racism is still a major obstacle today. I'd say that the government, private sector, and people still have a good ways to go.

[Universe Prince]

Brilliant!

At least as much as your question.

Well let's see . There was a war,  and an Emancipation Proclamation and passage of an amendment.

All government sanctioned.

Did the fed overstep their bounds?

The war was not a program to end slavery, but rather a war to prevent the breakup of the Union, not to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political maneuver against the Confederacy. (No, I'm not siding with slavery, just pointing out a fact.) And the passage of an amendment did not require a federal program or the Emancipation Proclamation or a civil war. (Notice the lack of civil wars in relation to other constitutional amendments.) So no, there was no program to end slavery. As best I can discover, Lincoln didn't give a damn about ending slavery until the war made it politically advantageous to do so.

Did the fed overstep its bounds? There is certainly an argument (and a damn good one) to be made that the federal government did indeed overstep its bounds to wage war in order to prevent states from seceding from what was supposed to be a voluntary union of states. The Civil War essentially transformed the country from "these United States" to "the United States". But we're all taught that Lincoln saved the Union, and suggesting otherwise results in asinine questions like, "Are you saying ending slavery was a bad thing?"

[BT]

Certainly there were programs in palce to enforce the 14,15 and 16th amendments.

It was called reconstruction.

[Universe Prince]

Certainly there were programs in palce to enforce the 14,15 and 16th amendments.

It was called reconstruction.

Ah yes, government's plan to clean up the mess it had made in the first place. And that worked so well. (Yes, I'm still being sarcastic.)

[BT]

I guess your sarcasm is used to cover up the fact that you are wrong.

The freedmens bureaus is a perfect example of a federal program dealing with freed slaves.

[Universe Prince]

I guess your sarcasm is used to cover up the fact that you are wrong.

Or maybe it is used to keep this fun rather than boring, as it would be if I were to try an ordinary conversation with you. You remember what that is like, don't you? You ask me questions, and I answer; then I ask you questions, and you evade, ignore and obfuscate. Boring.

And as I've said before, I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. However, you're not proving me wrong yet.

The freedmens bureaus is a perfect example of a federal program dealing with freed slaves.

I don't recall saying there was no program to deal with freed slaves. As I recall, what I said was, "there was no program to end slavery." If you really want to think Reconstruction is an example of a good and successful government program, then you will be wrong, but I doubt anything I say will change your mind. From just about everything I've read about Reconstruction, it was mostly a failure and a prime example of why top down solutions from the federal government are generally bad ideas from beginning to end regardless of how well intentioned they might be.

You like top down, big government solutions. I get it. And I am pretty sure that just about anything I say you're going to discount as wrong. And since you can't be bothered to make an argument beyond some weak, mostly tangential "gotcha" type comments, I guess I'm going to have to keep being sarcastic [insert overly dramatic sigh and shoulder shrug here]. Oh well.

[Plane]

"............. since you can't be bothered to make an argument beyond some weak, mostly tangential "gotcha" type comments, I guess I'm going to have to keep being sarcastic [insert overly dramatic sigh and shoulder shrug here]. Oh well.[/color]"

All rigt , bt don't forget how to write well , or loose your talent for exaustive exploration of an idea.
Don't loose what you are great at already as you attempt to develop something new.

[BT]

This is the problem.

In your haste to paint Republicans as hypocrits because they rejected Dr. Paul you fail to recognize that the reason is that republicans reject the extremes of Pauls message.

While it is possible that Georgia could launch a space program it is more efficient use of resources  to do it at the federal level. I don't know many republicans who are against space exploration.

And though Georgia does have a highway department, the interstate highway system was better funded and managed at the federal level.

There are times when regional and national solutions are more appropriate than state or local solutions.

Enforcement of constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings is another example (see little rock)

Since the advent of the 20th century a federal army makes more sense than a hodgepodge of state militias. I understand that and have no problem with it.

Conversely education and health care are better served at the local level as they are more personalized services and the closer management is to the client base the better.

If minimum standards are necessary to ensure portability and compatibility across state lines that is fine, let the funding, delivery and management of those services remain close to the people, they having a better handle on what they need and what they can afford.

No, this republican is not against government. This republican understands that political philosophy  is just jaw boning unless it is implemented. And therin lies the main difference between republicans and libertarians.

Republicans are in the arena. Libertarians sit in the bleachers. All sarcastic and pious but unable to garner more than 14 delegates even with their favorite son carrying their flag. Perhaps it is the message, perhaps it is the messenger, but what is painfully obvious is that it isn't selling well, even with the dearth (to me) of other viable candidates.

I would have been happy with Jeb Bush ( but he did not run) . I would have been happy with Fred Thompson ( but he hardly ran) . I would have been happy with Romney ( but he is no longer running). I am not happy with McCain and am less happy with Huckabee. That's the way it goes.

Ironically Hillary is now more acceptable to me than the GOP front runner and she is less acceptable than Obama as far as the good of the country goes .

Perhaps it is time for a generational change.