I fail to see how Ron Paul is the answer though. Government simply LETTING corporate America run the country rather than actively assisting them would only be a nominal improvement. Tax slashes from Libertarians will only exacerbate rather than reducing the near total control big business money has over politics; I'll stick with the Greens, at least for now. I mean, I grew up 40 miles from Galveston, drove by his office just last year when the fiancee was in TX on vacation. Just because I wouldn't still go out and vote for Clinton like I did when Ron Paul supporters handed me fliers because I said we should go back to the gold standard (I'll grant he's exactly right about that) doesn't mean I'm a Libertarian now. I believe in a big activist government, very strongly; I'm just weary of and worried about one that's active on behalf of the wealthiest and thus most powerful minority rather than the vast majority of the public it's supposed to serve.

But, yes, this should greatly slow and hopefully eliminate my partisan posts on the elephant and pony show. Even though the other thread is tangentially related to this one because they both reference the growing ranks of the disenfranchised underclass (I'm aware of no Ron Paul position that would do anything about that) this one is, IMHO, a lot bigger deal. Unfortunately, it seems the "my party, right or wrong" crowd was drawn to the other one like moths to a flame. It's rather ironic since I can't recall Taibbi going after Republicans once in his article, but unfavorably mentions Chuck Schumer and Hillary by name. Oh, well, their loss, I suppose; I doubt the GOP water carriers would see anything more than "Hillary bad" anyway....