That sounds like the Individualists' Union.
" Republicans and Democrats agree on is that the citizens have too much liberty." Yeah; one party believes there is too much liberty to marry a partner who is not of the proper gender, the other party believe there is too much liberty to release gigatonnes of ______ (select element or compound of your choice) into the environment randomly, to save a buck. Same difference, eh?

Most people I know are utterly disgusted with libertarians. Chacun a son gout.

Sadly, no. It does send them the message, but it's a message that doesn't matter to them.
Consider: the actual election itself boils down to which party can send out an image that best registers with the centroid of American public sentiment. The existence of other parties on the fringes has the same effect as individuals too fed up to vote; i.e., it takes votes away which otherwise would have been cast for the one of the two major parties closest to that voter's philosophy. (And no, they're not identical. That's just a sound bite, which is impossible in reality, if for no other reason that there are different people in each party).
But worse: given the electoral college system and the winner take all electoral delegations of most states, the majority of states are a lock for one of the big two parties or the other, so it makes no difference if even a very large number of voters decide to sit it out. The only states that matter are the swing states.
And, just to add to that, the electoral representation of the states isn't directly proportional to population, due to the favoritism for small states baked into the system, so even if you live in a swing state, whether you cast a vote for one of the big two, or another party, or just sit it out has a different effect depending on which state you live in.
I'd say to have the most effect on the government, you need to influence a party's candidate selection process. That's the point where money, efforts, etc for a given candidate has a direct effect; moving to another candidate, or just bailing out, has a distinct negative effect for the candidate you'd otherwise back, and sends an unmistakable, unignorable message. Once the two candidates of the two major parties have been named, the majority of Americans might as well just go take a nap until it's all over and they get notified who the undecided voters in the swing states have chosen for them. Which is kind of scary, given that undecided voters are more than likely idiots.

Indeed; America's best growth years economically were under unbelievably tax rates for top brackets, and the slowdown of growth has been largely correlated with the reduction of top interest tax rates. Of course, it's always possible that it's an accidental correlation, but it sure doesn't demonstrate that high taxes kill the economy at all. In fact, it does suggest that the current conservative implicit philosophy, that poor people need to be motivated by taking things away from them while rich people need to be motivated by giving them more, is precisely backwards. Which is just as likely to be the case as not.

Why would somebody neglect a child in your eyes? Does your ophthalmologist know about it? Safety glasses could keep them out, but be sure the parents don't neglect them in your nostrils, or ears.

The US sees things in totally binary/Manichean. Democrats vs Republicans. Liberals vs Conservatives. Red state vs Blue state. North vs South. East vs West. AFL vs NFL. Yankees vs Red Sox. Us vs Them. Good vs Evil. Iphone vs Android. Communism vs Freedom. Bush vs Clinton. Apple vs PC. Free World vs Tyranny. Sunni vs Shiite. Islam vs Everybody. Hatfields vs McCoys. Earnhardt vs Gordon. Ford vs Chevy. Pearson vs Petty. Israel vs Arabs. If you ain't with us, you is with the terrorists.

http://cdn3-www.comingsoon.net...
Oooh, feminists, yuckie! Get them away!

Heck, the deniers deny the existence of deniers.

150 years ago, radicals attempted to do away with the major source of energy in southern US against the frantic resistance of those living there, who were terrified that ending slavery was just a pipe dream as there was clearly no economically viable replacement. those who rode the slavery horse until its death did in fact fare poorly, but on the whole, other forms of energy were found and the south did not in fact become a third world subsistence economy after all.

the third world poor aren't burning a lot of diesel or gasoline. their burning of sheep dung or whatever doesn't come from fossil fuels and doesn't result in a net increase of atmospheric CO2.

Even more fundamental than that; earth's temperature is 30 degrees warmer than would be predicted by our black body radiation balance and our albedo; compare to the moon, for instance. Which is right about what CO2 absorbance in the atmosphere would predict; as was calculated by Svante Arrhenius over a century ago, at the birth of greenhouse gas theory. Those who believe that this effect will stop right at this temperature, despite added CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, have a lot of explaining to do.
Despite the argument that the onus is on AGW believers to provide proof, in fact any well established mechanism is not subject to this law. The onus to provide proof is not on those who believe if they turn on the light, the room will become brighter; the onus is on those who are 'skeptical' of that to explain why it would not. And providing examples of other things that provide illumination rather than the electric lights does not in the slightest count as such evidence.

To your average denialist, the IPCC report is like a reverse Bible. Whereas the Bible is true, which is proved by the fact that it says it's true, and that must therefore be true; on the other handm the IPCC report is a lie, and therefore they don't have to read it to see what's in that might be a lie, because it's a lie.

The distinction of denialists is that there is nothing that can, could, or would convince them to change their minds. Some of the more obtuse ones will cite this as a badge of pride; "There is nothing that will convince me that AGW is real". If you press denialists, asking "What piece of information is missing? What data would cause you to change your mind re the reality of AGW?" they will dodge the subject, giving an abstract answer like "convincing proof!" or "scientific proof!" or ask for something impossible, like a controlled study of planetary climates holding all factors except CO2 constant, or similar. Ideally, of course, this is determined a priori; the evidence required to establish probability is defined, the experiment is done to find that evidence, if it exists then the hypothesis is considered valid, otherwise it is considered insufficiently proved. Although this is more honored in the breach in reality, at least scientists will be able to tell you what evidence would convince them regarding any hypothesis, even if they're still just piling up observations. Every scientist knows that it's always possible to look at any amount of evidence for anything and say "Nope, not sufficiently convincing." even if everybody else on earth is convinced; so that point of view is not respected at all.

"Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There. Boy, you sure got some strong opinions for somebody who doesn't even know the definition of the subject under discussion.

So, there's a brilliant programmer or programmers who can and do create and negotiate their own path by constantly juggling the requirements, the current state of the project, the gap between where it is and where it wants to be, within their heads at all times, while keeping the code clean and readable. And you want to convert your organization from reliance on one or a group of these talented programmers, so that you'd have to quit the business if anything happened to them, into one where the talents and knowledge and wisdom and good habits and skills and styles and diligence are all built into the processes so that mediocre programmers can do good work by just adhering to processes; and good programmers will find these processes are in accord with what they're doing anyway and not be hindered. Ha! Welcome to the dilemma of every organization, ever; making the leap from a bunch of talented people pooling their talents into an organization where the talent is built into the structure/function of the organization. If 5% organizations make the leap successfully, I'll be surprised.