When your rebuttals have been reduced to reductio ad absurdum, straw man, excluded middle, and ad hominem, it might be time to, you know, check the strength of your argument. -- Tamara [moderator]
By all means, walk us through those points. Seems to me that
Boats is simply and correctly stating political reality.
So your average voter is more concerned about the WWF than the BoR. Your point? - ditto
A bit of hyperbole but, unfortunately, quite accurate.
The inevitable veer of any discussion of this type into "the Libertarian Party is our only hope" sophistry serves one purpose, intended or not; to excoriate those who hold a different view...and the leading edge of that argument is pushed frequently by staff. That sort of elitism is counterproductive, no matter the discussions in the faculty lounge.
When I was a teenager, a neighbor of mine had the entirely predictable habit of "accidentally" bumping the chessboard when he realized he was a couple of moves from being checkmated. The iteration on this board is to ban or strongly discourage, by convenient means, certain subjects from discussion. That doesn't speak well for those who would feign adherence to the rules.
It's as if the members:
1. Can't be trusted to discuss those subjects in a rational manner, or;
2. It's too much "trouble" to moderate a discussion when the outcome might not be to certain moderators' liking.
To add insult, for instance, we're reminded constantly that the attempt to reverse decades of Democrat Party sociofascism can't be aided by voting for Republicans because they are [choose your own pejorative] "DemoLite". If we all suddenly "saw the light" and voted for Libertarian Party candidates, we'd hasten that reversal. It isn't going to happen, for several very potent reasons, and it is naive to suggest otherwise.
As some have noted in this thread and endless others, the Libertarian Party has no power to effect change; I suspect it never will. It, and others such as The Green Party, are relegated to the role of spoilers...nothing more nor less.
I'd be grateful if certain strident advocates of the "dump the Republicrats" movement would refrain from asserting that those of differing opinions are lacking in "principle" because we see the picture differently.
Finally, let me toss a few current subjects into the mix and ask the adherents of the "our only hope" mindset how they think they could, in any substantial way, be effected in the near future by withholding support from the current administration:
1. The odious AWB;
2. The reaction to September 11th;
3. Tax cuts.
Frankly, I'll take small steps forward any day over giant steps backward, but would be most interested in your opinions, even if you continue to decry the slowing of ever-increasing gov't power in favor of the fond hope that taking the right decision in the voting booth will solve the problem by next Tuesday.
Quick addendum:
A democratic success is the fault of the Republicans for failing to distiguish themselves enough from the Liberals. - lendringser [moderator]
The mixing of labels aside, doesn't this ignore much of the political history of the 1990s?
