First, I need some confirmation that I'm not misunderstanding what you've said. There are some "masters" who have rigged the game to produce two general election candidates, either of which will forward the masters' agenda. If that's what you intended to say, then I have some questions, otherwise please clarify what you meant. Mind you, I'm hoping that I've misunderstood you.

If the "game" is rigged by the "masters", what would make a Ron Paul victory in the primaries possible if he would not forward the agenda of the "masters"?

If the general election can only result in choosing the lesser evil, why isn't choosing RP in the primaries a case of selecting the least of five or six evils? Are you opposed to choosing the least evil only when the choices are reduced to two?

Did the "masters" act to eliminate such candidates as Bachmann, Cain and Huntsman because they, like Ron Paul, will not forward the "agenda"?

"Nothing,", you say, "will change if people continue to vote for the lesser of 2 evils…" . Surely, you see powerful evidence to the contrary. Many of us who voted for McCain viewed him as the lesser of two evils relative to Obama. Do you suggest that nothing has changed since Obama took office?

Finally, give me your reaction to this scenario. Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination for President. Those of us who did not support him in the primaries refuse to support him in the general election because we refuse to be a part of that game. How would you view our moral decision in the light of its likely outcome?

Most people who understand the connotation of empire and apply it to the United States do so because they hate the country and what it has been and has stood for. Obamaphiles and many Paulbots meet that standard.

Paulbots are certainly not to be condemned for supporting their candidate in the primaries, but for denying their support for one of the other candidates should someone else win. The decision to behave that way is born either of utter stupidity or hatred for our country .

Slamming on the breaks is certainly the right start. Unfortunately we need more than that - well thought out and well executed rollbacks. I want both, but I'll settle for sending Obama home, whether by electing one of the others or Ron Paul.

That's exactly right.

Whether or not my objections apply to other candidates or not is beside the point, Azarlien. If you follow our discussion to it's source you'll find it began with a strong pro-Paul statement by Walter Block. Paul has remained the subject - until you jumped in that is. Why would you want to drop from arguing that, " Ron Paul is wonderful and has the answers we need", to settling for, "He's no worse than any of the other candidates."?

One thing we've established here is that you Paul-bots love to vet the other candidates, but you just can't bear taking the same approach to your messiah. That's too bad.

As to your pathetic effort to defend the use of "empire", let me reply with a word of only one syllable -CRAP.

LOL!

Oh, yes she is and dumb as a post!

I couldn't agree more. Our MAIN focus needs to be to throw the RADICAL out!!

First let me address the question of whether RP has made things work in the real world. After he completed his education he served in the Air Force and the National Guard as a medical officer. That duty, while honorable, consisted, as military service always does, of following orders not making things work. He then opened a practice in obstetrics. Unlike general practice or many medical specialties, obstetricians perform the same service and face the same limited scope of problems over and over again. Incidentally, the problems and challenges they face are, in third world countries, generally addressed successfully without medical assistance. An honorable kind of service, no doubt, but not one that represents preparation for the presidency.

While he has clearly been a diligent student of economics and the free market, his family ventures into publishing (setting aside the charges of racism and crediting himself with the work of others) have not been such as to provide him with any first hand knowledge of the challenges facing one who manages a successful business enterprise.

Apart from his unsuccessful runs for the Senate and the Presidency, he has spent most of his adult life in the House of Representatives, secure in the knowledge that if he brings home the pork, he's likely to be re-elected even in those years when he doesn't run unopposed. Seniority associated with his many terms in the House has put him in committee positions where he might have spearheaded something as notable as Newt's Contract with America, but it hasn't seemed to work out that way. He has introduced something like 600 Bills over the years and only one - the sale of some property to a Historic Preservation Society - has been enacted into law.

He appears to be a good family man, a generous man, a competent obstetrician, and a man with a good command of economic theory and some good ideas, BUT he never has been able to get much done so far, and it seems unlikely that, nearing 80 years of age, he has what it takes to do that now on the level of President of the United States.

That said, if he becomes the Republican candidate, I'll vote for him and pray for a miracle.

Condescending or humble and morally sound? Our opinions differ, that's all. As to comparisons of those who support Ron Paul to those who support Obama, no one but members of those two groups would ever refer to the United States of America as an empire. Well, of course, there are also those who have no idea what the word empire connotes.

It goes without saying that Walter Block, whom you've quoted, would be a supporter of Ron Paul, they share a strong kinship:
1) neither has any experience making anything work in the real world,
2) both present their views with condescension,
3) both have chosen endeavors with minimum risk and maximum security, and
4) both, like liberals, expect acceptance for their intentions rather than results.

If either of them was addressing the construct appropriate for a new-born country, their advice to avoid foreign intervention and federal institutions like the Fed., HUD, Fannie, Freddie, the Dept. of Education, etc. would be wise and useful. That's not the case - not by a long shot. They're addressing the issue of leadership of our nation now, as it exists after at least 60 years of massive overreach by the federal government. Neither they nor we have the luxury of a clean slate.

To support Ron Paul on the basis of what he's said so far is merely to participate in a dream that is not at all dissimilar to Hope and Change. To gain support for Ron Paul requires believable answers to the all important question of how we get from here to where we would rather be. Until Paul provides such answers he can only be viewed as a dreamer with what might be some laudable dreams but no notion of how he would make them reality.

The last three years have provided powerful lessons about what happens when a dreamer with no background other than academics and politics is put in a leadership role, and how quickly things can become much worse instead of better.