"when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
"You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho
I love to make Liberals Cry, and Whine.
So, this is for them.
GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST !
Last edited by Max R.; 05-19-2015 at 07:55 PM.
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.
"when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
"You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
“Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho
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.
Last edited by Max R.; 05-19-2015 at 08:08 PM.
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.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke
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.
"Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
--Wayne Allyn Root
www.rootforamerica.com
www.FairTax.org
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.
"Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
--Wayne Allyn Root
www.rootforamerica.com
www.FairTax.org
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.
Doesn't my statement above consist of rebuttals of his so-called 'information' ?You still won't answer his provided information, won't rebut any information he has provided
A joke ? I've lost count of all the challenges I've issued him, which he's then ducked !!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.
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.So, as I said, you drummond, are the one who continues to be labor the lefts "debate" style.
You state I supposedly 'ADMIT' to 'prefer the constant liberal expansion of government'. THAT IS A LIE.With this as proof, alongside your own admittance that your prefer the constant liberal expansion of government,
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 ...
It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!
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.
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 ?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.
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.
You would more usefully make that point to the Leftie you seem intent upon defending.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.
It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!
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.
It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!