"I chose Ron Paul's anti-choice stance as an example of the inherent flaw in his philosophy (and no GM. I am not a 'single-issue' voter. You can go back and look at all my previous posts over the years). If Libertarians are so rah rah about individual rights how do they (you) square policy that excludes women from the right to make their own decisions? Sounds just a little paternal to me."

See, I don't see Ron Paul's viewpoint on this issue as being an inherent flaw in his philosophy.  (I went into that a bit up above this post somewhere, and I'll try not to bore you with it again here.)  To me it is a natural extension of his desire to derive governmental authority from the Constitution, and cut out powers that are not given to the federal government by that document.  Ron Paul has said repeatedly that those kinds of decisions ought to be left to the states.  If those decisions are not to be left to the states, then we need to change the constitution, rather than find ways around it.

I read recently that Ron Paul will not be included in Fox News's December 4th debates because somebody at Fox has decided that he is "no longer relevant."  I think that it's a shame that decision was made (if it is in fact true) because I think a significant portion of the electorate still has no idea that there actually is a person running for president (on the Republican side of things, no less) who wants to get the troops home from Iraq.

I am a bit of a sucker for candidates whose views resist soundbyting, I'll admit.  I want to hear arguments from our candidates that could not be written on the back of a fortune cookie slip.  I'm not suggesting the multi-day format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but surely there is a middle ground that has been ignored for decades in favor of all these pre-packaged, heavily "handled" candidates, such as every member of the "top tier" in both parties.

I'm not really a Libertarian, either.  But I am one of a fast-growing population who have begun consistently registering as "independent" out of a sense of repulsion due to the vile nature of both major parties.  Both parties consistently seek to appeal to some of the worst aspects of human nature (such as fear and ignorance) for their votes. 

I want a new label, something like "Argumentarian."  I want arguments, not talking points or soundbytes.  I think this may mean that Reality and I are on a "trial separation."  (To use your metaphor.)

Herring405