It sucks, that neither party fits my ideology.

I look at it this way.  Which one will be better for me in the short term, long term, and for the country based on recent performance and voting record.  Not speeches, plans, or party ideology; on actions.

Congratulations.  I am always impressed with people who overcome adversity and attain whatever it is they desire.

I honestly have no problem with libertarian principles whatsoever, but sometimes people mistakenly label a certain politician's or Congress's actions as libertarian.  A libertarian is essentially for the government interfering with normal social relations as little as possible.  In an economic sense, this would mean not showing favoritism to ANY group.

Democrats tend to show favoritism to the poor, while Republicans tend to show favoritism to the rich.  But Republicans are often considered to be closer to libertarian principles.  This is true to an extent.  Deregulation is in line with libertarian principles, but passing legislation that allows a certain industry to gain an inherent advantage over the market, such as not allowing foreign prescription drug companies to import drugs due to "safety" (another way of saying that domestic prescription drug companies paid the government off once you have analyzed the facts), does not follow libertarian principles because it shows favoritism.

Republicans usually don't stick to libertarian principles even if people claim they do, they often shift the market so that it is disadvantageously in favor of larger companies, which contradicts what a libertarian stands for, government neutrality.

John McCain, for instance, says that we should allow the free market to lower insurance premiums.  That wouldn't be so much of a problem if the government had not already given insurance companies a loaded deck.  They can unreasonably discriminate on who they choose to insure, they can pressure hospitals/doctors into accepting what they want to pay rather than what the hospital/doctor would normally charge, and the policy holder has little to no power in challenging a decision to drop their coverage even if they have been paying premiums for twenty years.  That is completely against libertarian principles.  A free market would be more advantageous to a potential policy holder than it is now.

I am comfortable with a libertarian relaxing of standards on some areas of the market, but I hate it when people try to claim that helping out the "big guy" and hurting the "little guy" is in line with libertarian principles.  That is simply incorrect.

You know you come across as an elitist right? With this, and your '"potential' equality in our society" comment. If I am only potential equal to you, I guess that makes me less they you in reality? 

Starting life in different places is far different then equality.

I don't have time for a long reply to this, but I will reply to it. I have some comments about medical care, and one thing that would make it very easy to reduce cost by 90%.

I am just saying that many people are not as lucky as you OR me.  They just don't have the opportunity to move upwards in society or even go to college simply because their financial situation is too poor.

I am just saying that many people are not as lucky as you OR me.  They just don't have the opportunity to move upwards in society or even go to college simply because their financial situation is too poor.

 Everyone has an oppurtunity to move upwards.  Outside of people with huge physical or mental disabilties.

I'm about to say something.  I don't live this way but I just want to put it out there.

Some people don't want to "move up", some people aren't able to because of intelligence, disability, or a whole life of subpar education, parenting, community support, and bias. They aren't lazy.  They want to work 38-50 hours a week, have a family, and be able to feed, clothe, and shelter there family by putting in a good week.

It's easy (and cool) to say in America, "Why should I pay for their health care?" or "They should pull themselves up."

But the hard working mentality of Americans poorest (as compared to the poor in other industrialized nations) is one of the elements that keeps the oppurtunity to start a business or "move up" alive.

Raising the minimum wage to something like $9/hour and making sure every one can afford medical care is not an outrageous request and it won't kill the country.  If anything by raising minimum wage (slightly like that so it won't cause too much inflation) they will still be in the income range where it is impossible to save and have a family, so it will be good for the economy as they'll be buying more.

I'll finish by saying, again, that standard or living is not just income.

Raising the minmium wage to $9 an hour would just raise the price of everything by about the same amount the minimium wage was raised.

That's not slight enough... since in big companies a dollar an hour REALLY adds up. 

You also don't really seem to grasp my point.  As I said I'm for Government run healthcare or a similar option.

The options people like Obama talk about though aren't good ones.  They're worse then what we have now.  Treating health insurance like car insurance.  Fining people if they don't have the insurance when they're sick. 

Give me a full non-insurance tax run program... rather then a plan that's going to make things worse.

However said program should be taken from the people equally, treating everyone the same.  By a broad flat tax of some kind.(accounting for cost of living adjusted by county.) 

Treating people equally.