You are an eloquent writer.
You are obviously an intellectual.

However, others would take you more seriously if you spoke on a more mature level and dropped the obsentites. Honestly, it makes people want to write you off.

I'm telling you this, because I feel like you could actually put up some VERY good arguments for debate [a sometimes rare quality], however, you hinder yourself with such regressions.

Another point I forgot to mention [damn forgetting to proof read!] is that Libertarians do not want to be FORCED to help someone. That is completely different and irrelevant to the fact of if they WANT to help someone or DO help others. TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. It's not selfish. I do not want to be forced to help another, but by god, I can bet you I'd help whoever it was by my own free will and compassion. Forcing charity demeans the term and act in itself. Charity should be out of compassion – not obligation.

Little tid bit of a story to better illustrate this point: Ten years ago, my family's house exploded. Yes, exploded, completely leveled it. We were all severely burned and spent MONTHS in the hospital. I, myself, have had nearly 30 surgeries, and will be getting a few more in the near future. I digress, when we were left with nothing, no material possessions, and not even each other to lean on [as we were too ill to even see each other] a large group stepped in. The majority affliated with the Libertarian party, and some were anarchists. Those that could give money, did. Those that could not spare money, gave time. More than any other group or organization, more than any other political group, these guys stepped in. As a little girl, scared, alone, and with no family to even contact and with parents in the hospital that I also could not contact, these strangers showed me more love than I've ever known. The best part? They did it out of the kindness of their hearts, not because they were forced to or felt obligated to.

No, I can bet you that any one of them would not have wanted to be FORCED to help us – however, that has nothing to do with whether they actually wanted to and did.

Before you write another article on Libertarians, try actually understanding the concepts of being a Libertarian, rather than making your own assumptions. Your representation of the Libertarian party is completely inacurrate and full of shallow thoughts and insights. Maybe if you actually UNDERSTOOD the concepts, you wouldn't be attacking as you are. However, if you honestly think these concepts are true, then I'd be with you in an anti-Libertarian rage – fortunately, you lack an understanding in all of your article. Sad that you misrepresent Libertarian ideals so well, though.

2. The UN and NATO exist for a wider purpose than kissing the US's ass. Of course they don't put our best interests first … our "best interests" don't always have the best interests of the rest of the fucking world at heart.

3. I didn't say anything about the government getting bigger. If I had my say, the government would end up smaller, and STILL be able to accomplish more good for the citizenry and the world as a whole.

4. I think we could do a fantastic job of helping the poor while taxing people the same. Or instituting a flat, no exemptions, tax system which automatically excluded collection from people living at or below the poverty line.

5. I don't particularly care for the massive corporate whore candidates either. That's why I liked Kucinich, and why I'll hopefully be able to end up voting for Obama. (A large percentage of his campaign contributions came from individual donors, in amounts of $200 or less.)

I notice you didn't have anything to say about the Roe v. Wade issue. In case you missed the actual point of item #4, it was Roe v. Wade, not the tax system.

2. The UN & NATO can pass unconstitutional regulations. They speak not for the Constitution, nor always for the best interests of the US, nor are the majority elected, or do the public generally get a say.
Nuff said!

3. You think the government needs to get BIGGER then? (Like the other candidates want..) When the economy is doing so dire perhaps a real change is needed, the bureaucracy is out of control pure & simple, and this makes the government an inefficient monster of unaccountability.

4. I think taxing people less is a good start to helping the less well-off! 'The poor' wouldn't be such an issue if the Fed and the like didn't stick its nose into everything, and the private banks controlling the interest rates, causing inflation etc, all help to wipe out the middle class, ensnaring the majority in a net of debt.

5. Of course he would have regulations to protect the people, it's so naíve to think that he wouldn't. The other candidates are all donated tens of millions at a time from corporations, so who do you think they want to win!?

Calling us braindead when people were voting for Romney super-tuesday, thinking that he wasn't just a tool of the neo-con core, now he's quit, having a knock at Ron Pauls war stance and effectively handing the thing to McCain QUICKLY in a strategic & dishonest move so the neo-cons can try for another 'War-President'.

Those who vote for the other corporate tools are the braindead ones who basically want a 3rd Dubya term.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm sticking with them, thanks.