But let’s just say my view of human nature is a very cynical one, and libertarianism requires one to be much more optimistic about what Americans will do if given 1) a lot more money and 2) a lot more responsibility. I see, in general, a much greater divide between the rich and the poor if you do that for any length of time. I don’t get warm fuzzy Darwinian feelings from that.

With regard to the NWS, it’s my understanding of the Libertarian platform (and, admittedly, I haven’t read in it great detail since Harry Browne) considers the services of the National Weather Service something that can be accomplished just as effectively with private companies (e.g. Accuweather). Of course, since Santorum’s bill was recently so trounced (not that he has anything to do with the party. I know that), they might be reconsidering what the public thinks about that. (Also, Americans would be none too pleased to have to pay for access to data from equipment they paid for with their money.)

I’d write more, but I’m already running late.

http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/

(just keep clicking)

I admit that many of them are vague, but some are pretty specific. Or at least specific enough to compare to other candidates.

You may continue to go on about getting choked up over Obama or what appears to be a feeling that “it’s the thought that counts” is just as valid in federal leadership as it is in gift giving. (On second thought, I think it IS just as valid… ahem… I’ve gotten some shitty gifts in my life)

To me, it’s precisely THAT type of thinking that will have to be changed before our government will ever come close to making any damn sense. Say what needs to be done, do it, then fucking go home and eat. I’m sick of the reams upon reams of paper it takes to print out the legislation that shouldn’t have been created in the first place.

This shit with the baseball/HGH/steroids/pop-rocks hearings? Why are we doing this? Why in the name of unholy FUCK am *I* paying for it?

So I just cannot get behind this fake excitement for these fake candidates who aren’t really saying anything, no matter how unimportant you insist having an agenda is.

i didn’t word the sentence at #2 quite right, re-reading it, so let me clarify. i meant that, considering the actual powers of the president (which i agree are pretty clearly set out in article ii), obama has said enough at this point about his specific policy views — not about his views of the power of the president. basically, i have an idea (article ii powers plus the sort of leadership/figurehead role and style i’d like to see in a president) of what the role of a president is, and based on my ideas about that, i think obama can fit the bill. your ideas are different, so obama doesn’t fit the bill for you.

to you, a specific idea of what government should be is important to you. i don’t think my ideal government is close to possible because i think in order for it to happen, the hearts and minds of most people and the way they’ve been conditioned to be, both socially and evolutionarily, would need to change. any candidate i’ve seen matches maybe at most 50% of my ideas about what the government should be. i’ve come to terms with the fact that no one will agree with me, though i wish someone did, and i do envy you and others who find candidates that so well represent your views. as for me, i’m just happy to see someone that seems remotely to be moving the government toward the ideal i seek, especially considering they actually have a chance of winning this thing. big government, small government, this constitution or a new one — that’s not important to me right now with this election. that’s another conversation for another time — my utopia and my technical policy ideas are much later. i’m looking for baby steps, and i think barack obama is a pretty darn solid baby step, compared to the comparative shakiness of clinton or mccain.

i don’t think ron paul disproves my theory at all re: candidates talking about tax policy. ron paul has more to say about it than most, that’s for sure, and he has the advantage of advocating a policy that largely gets rid of or at least goes above a lot of the debates about tax policy, but the talk is still pretty general, and i think that even a lot of ron paul supporters would tune him out if he started talking about his policy ideas in a detail any greater than talking points — and i’m sure ron paul supporters care a lot more about tax policy than average americans.

1) The general tone implying that because BO wants to re-open the government to the people, that makes him a good leader. I don’t think it does, and I don’t think he has the experience yet to lead, even in the capacity of this fantasy gate-keeper you’ve lined him up to be.

2) This bothers me: “i think that obama has given a good enough idea of where he stands, in my eyes, in terms of what i see as the role of the president and the amount of power he actually has.” I know you didn’t word it precisely as I took it, so correct me if I’m wrong… but this seems to imply that you’re basing your choice, at least in part, on what the candidate feels is or should be the role of the President. We already have a document that defines quite well what the role of the President is. You’re right, it has been stretched and perverted by others, but it’s still not the Emperor throne the hip bush-haters like to imply it is.

I’ve always known that someone like Ron Paul couldn’t even do all the things he has outlined if he DID become President. But I can’t stress enough how important it is for me to vote for someone who SAYS what he’d like to see done, when 90% of those things line up with what I feel the federal government’s job is supposed to be.

So when you say Obama and Paul both have people thinking about change, I can agree with you in the most general sense possible. But the fact is that you and I both know Obama’s ideal government would be much larger than Ron Paul’s or Fred Thompson’s or mine. And to me, that’s the issue.

You say that the problem isn’t this or that, it’s that people aren’t active in it. Again, I’m agreeing with you — people aren’t active enough to realize the government does more than it should, spends more than it should, wastes more than it should, etc. etc. et mofo-cetera.

And lastly I think Ron Paul himself disproves your theory that nobody would want to hear a candidate talking about tax policy.