Libertarians

[fj1200]

blah:

That was a whole lotta no links backing your point and whining when I make factual statements. Pointing out that not everything the Thatcher and Reagan did was conservative just acknowledges truth.

[aboutime]

That was a whole lotta no links backing your point and whining when I make factual statements. Pointing out that not everything the Thatcher and Reagan did was conservative just acknowledges truth.

fj. You just don't get it...do ya? Take note how ONLY YOU are the one constantly insisting such BULLCRAP.
But then again. That helps us recognize your mental, and educational challenges YOU can't admit.

[Max R.]

a vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil

And not voting is acquiescing to evil. "Silence is consent", yes? Don't like the two major parties? Vote for a third party candidate.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

-- Edmund Burke

[Max R.]

The lesser of the 2 evils. The GOP will get control of everything and do exactly nothing. Carter, Clinton and Obama are what happens when the left gets control.

I'd put ME in office if it was up to me. And some people better have some go-fasters if it happened. The one time the GOP and DNC become buddies is when any threat from the outside happens against their lock on the bureaucracy. Break THAT and you got the code.

The last outsider to win was Carter, and the partly he allegedly represented turned on him. Point is, even if an outsider wins, how do they get Congress?

You call yourself an independent and I call myself a right-leaning Constitutionalist. THAT is what I swore to uphold and defend.

In the meantime, I'm voting AGAINST the Dems. They are far more dangerous than the do-nothing GOP.

Agreed about the Democrats.

Still, not voting at all is giving up. Better to fight. Don't want to vote Republican? Fine, vote third party. I recommend Libertarian. It's not perfect, but giving it more power may persuade the RNC to pull its head out of its ass and smell fresh air.

[fj1200]

And not voting is acquiescing to evil. "Silence is consent", yes? Don't like the two major parties? Vote for a third party candidate.

I'll add that until the unlikely event that a third party ever becomes a viable option, one has no place to complain if one is also sitting out the primaries.

[Max R.]

I'll add that until the unlikely event that a third party ever becomes a viable option, one has no place to complain if one is also sitting out the primaries.

While I agree, it's not necessary for a third party to be viable. Not voting means one's vote is non-existent. Just another citizen who is a couch-potato.

OTOH, by voting, even for a losing candidate, means one's vote exists. It's a message of existence, a message that citizens aren't happy with the status quo, a message that citizens are willing to act and NOT give up.

[Max R.]

I'll add that until the unlikely event that a third party ever becomes a viable option, one has no place to complain if one is also sitting out the primaries.

Agreed. Sitting on the sidelines and complaining is, IMHO, pussying out.

[indago]

And not voting is acquiescing to evil. "Silence is consent", yes? Don't like the two major parties? Vote for a third party candidate.

Yes, that's the point...

[Gunny]

That is the reality of it all and why one simply has to vote for the lesser of two evils--as the "not voting for the lesser" is same as a vote for the greater.
The system is set up that way and has been for well over 75 years.
The "do nothing but watch" is how the Nazi's got power and we see where that led, millions died as a result and trillions in destruction of property.
Media is a third arm of the lousy Dem party-thus every decent American has to vote to overcome that monopoly and that massive corruption that is the standard operating procedure they use every election, dead people vote, illegals vote, good dem idiots voting multiple times , etc.
Question is--will 2016 election give us the chance to turn much of this around? Or will it be the nail in the coffin of the Republic...(?)
8 more years with dem control and this nation is sunk... if no reversal= this nation is sunk......
China's and Russia's "moves" highlight the tip of the iceberg thats coming.... --Tyr

The answer is no unless the GOP employs new tactics. Sticking 20 people out in the field and them debate each other and tear each other down is doing the Democrats' job for them. Focusing on Hillary and NOT the election is doing her job for her. Having no real plan is doing their job for them.

Those tactics didn't work in 2008 nor 2012. If the GOP/right doesn't switch gears, look for a 3-peat.

[Gunny]

Agreed about the Democrats.

Still, not voting at all is giving up. Better to fight. Don't want to vote Republican? Fine, vote third party. I recommend Libertarian. It's not perfect, but giving it more power may persuade the RNC to pull its head out of its ass and smell fresh air.

Oh I'll vote. To me, if you don't vote, you ain't got the right to bitch. And I'm a freakin' Gunny -- I LOVE to bitch.

[DragonStryk72]

fj. You just don't get it...do ya? Take note how ONLY YOU are the one constantly insisting such BULLCRAP.
But then again. That helps us recognize your mental, and educational challenges YOU can't admit.

So, wait... providing linked evidence of your claims, complete with direct quote of the persons involved on a debate site... is wrong? How? How exactly is one person provided documented proof of their assertions, while the other person just whinges on and on without ever addressing any of the points proof against the evidence-providers mental capacities?

The only one here who has shown them inadequate to real debate thus far is, again, Drummond. FJ has engaged him, and engaged him directly, with every bit of evidence to back up his claims. Asking that Drummond back up his own in the same manner, particularly when Drummond is acting in a directly accusatory manner toward FJ, is precisely what a debate site is about.

Drummond can either cede the point, or put his big boy pants on and start debating FJ. School yard whinging however, is, as inferred, childish, and more pointedly, intellectually cowardly.

[DragonStryk72]

While I agree, it's not necessary for a third party to be viable. Not voting means one's vote is non-existent. Just another citizen who is a couch-potato.

OTOH, by voting, even for a losing candidate, means one's vote exists. It's a message of existence, a message that citizens aren't happy with the status quo, a message that citizens are willing to act and NOT give up.

More pointedly, we don't need to win the big chair. All we need for the other two parties to straighten up is the possibility they could lose to us. Think about it, right now, they employ the tactics that they employ precisely because they only have a single opponent or dissenting opinion to get around. A or B mentality keeps candidates from both parties from having to answer more complex questions.

If 3rd parties can get up to at least, say 25% of the vote, then the major parties have a serious issue, because that means they now have to deal with someone who can poke holes in both sides, and have to change the entire manner in which they carry themselves.

[Drummond]

Nope, you're the leftist, Drummond. Not fj, not fj at all.

Thanks for the uncalled-for insult. You haven't the smallest basis for calling me a 'leftist', you well know it, but you do so anyway.

Not FJ, you say ? I've proved he's no 'Thatcherite', not least because a Thatcherite wouldn't seek to insult every other Thatcherite out there, which is what FJ is doing every time he posts (he claims to be the 'One True Thatcherite', which says that nobody else is) !! Explain to me how any Conservative would be motivated to do such a thing.

However ... A LEFTIST WOULD.

That's besides the recent evidence we've had of his willingness to consider expressing any degree of disagreement with Margaret Thatcher (which itself invalidates his self-assumed bona fides, proving him to be A LIAR). Not to mention an affinity he seems to have with Libertarians, ALSO known to be a Left wing movement.

You still won't answer his provided information, won't rebut any information he has provided

Doesn't my statement above consist of rebuttals of his so-called 'information' ?

yet squall and whine that he prove Something, and then, you'll just run away again, or if he calls you out, you'll behind your "sso you have no proof" straw man, despite proof having been placed in this very thread.

A joke ? I've lost count of all the challenges I've issued him, which he's then ducked !!

So, as I said, you drummond, are the one who continues to be labor the lefts "debate" style.

I have a history of making a case, AND backing it with links, wherever appropriate .. the membership here as a whole must know that to be true.

With this as proof, alongside your own admittance that your prefer the constant liberal expansion of government,

You state I supposedly 'ADMIT' to 'prefer the constant liberal expansion of government'. THAT IS A LIE.

SHOW ME WHERE I'VE DONE ANY SUCH THING - PROVE YOUR CASE. Or, APOLOGISE.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN'T DEFEND FJ WITHOUT STOOPING TO UNTRUTHS ...

[Drummond]

The only one here who has shown them inadequate to real debate thus far is, again, Drummond. FJ has engaged him, and engaged him directly, with every bit of evidence to back up his claims.

What a load of rot. What about the claim FJ makes to be 'The One True Thatcherite', which his monicker says on every one of his posts ? It's an insult to every TRUE Thatcherite out there, he well knows it, but persists ... and he's no way at all of backing that insult up.

Asking that Drummond back up his own in the same manner, particularly when Drummond is acting in a directly accusatory manner toward FJ, is precisely what a debate site is about.

So tell me. Is a debate site about littering it with gratuitous insults ? Is it about total rewrites of others' posts, for the sake of abuse and denigration, as an excuse to diminish the need to answer points made in an objective manner ?

FJ only 'debates' when he feels like it (.. or is usefully able to, which isn't as often as it should be). When he doesn't feel like it, the insults and post rewrites turn up here instead.

DragonStryk ... find me ONE post of FJ's (or anyone's) which I've totally rewritten, as FJ does all too often. Come on -- MEET THAT CHALLENGE.

Except, of course ... YOU CANNOT.

Drummond can either cede the point, or put his big boy pants on and start debating FJ. School yard whinging however, is, as inferred, childish, and more pointedly, intellectually cowardly.

You would more usefully make that point to the Leftie you seem intent upon defending.

[Drummond]

That was a whole lotta no links backing your point and whining when I make factual statements. Pointing out that not everything the Thatcher and Reagan did was conservative just acknowledges truth.

A challenge. One where, if you can meet it, you get to suggest to the readers here that your intention(s) don't necessarily come down to an attempt to insult the memories of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

You say that not everything that Reagan and Thatcher did conformed to Conservatism. Yes ? THEN PROVIDE YOUR PROOF.