logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Republican Pledge to America, Pros and Cons Debate
AuthorMusician
post Sep 24 2010, 02:44 PM
Post #1


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,330
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



The Republican Party has come out with this:

The Pledge to America

It's a simple debate question:

What are the Pros and Cons regarding this Pledge to America?

And just for grins:

What is your personal take on the Pledge to America from any of these viewpoints -- or others you deem fit; these are simply suggestions: political strategy, originality, rhetorical effectiveness, historical connections, logical flow, sincerity?

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Sep 24 2010, 02:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Start new topic
Replies (80 - 87)
Maybe Maybe Not
post Oct 2 2010, 04:26 PM
Post #81


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 2 2010, 10:55 AM) *
Government grows during downturns. Government grows during upturns. Government, lo and behold, just grows.

This needs to change.
And you're going to trust (but verify), based on the legacy of Reagan, the Tea Party, and the Pledge, the Republicans are going to make this happen.

What will you do if they don't? Vote for a third party and let the Democrats renew their hold on government in 2012?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Oct 2 2010, 04:37 PM
Post #82


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,397
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG)
For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm actually confident that the GOP can be reformed out of just being less profligate than the Dems and into upholding the economic principles in its platform.
I have been watching the Republican primaries across the country. There are talented principled new voices such as Schiff or Kokesh or many less publicized candidates which have been rejected in the Republican primaries. There have been a few shake ups in the primaries here and there. Many of the promoted Tea Party candidates have a pro big central government agenda to go with their limited government lingo. The big government agenda is the neocon pro war position or the theocon pro religion morality in government. The lingo of the new people seems to be shared with the old guard which has been in Washington DC for many terms. There is no hell to pay if most of the old guard are returned with some new neocons and theocons. A reform of the Republican Party will take a dramatic rejection of the present faces and rejection of all big government agendas. The Pledge illustrates that is not the case with the bunch representing the Republican Party in the November general election.

Now, if your optimism is looking beyond this November and the current bunch from the primaries, I agree there is some hope. The new faces were in the primaries in unprecedented numbers. They lost for the most part but the new perspectives have been introduced to some of the public. 15 to 20% does not win elections but it is the beginning of acceptance of our country's current failure. The 15 to 20% signals the potential to further educate the public to supporting reform against big government. Maybe in two years? The possibility is there then but not this time around.

-------

QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not)
What will you do if they don't? Vote for a third party and let the Democrats renew their hold on government in 2012?
Since the Democrats and Republicans are both for big government, there may be a shift to the Democrats as the one party for supporters of big central government. The neo con Republicans will fit with the Democrats easily. The theocons are less predictable. They may cling to the Republicans or switch to a third party. The Republican Party will continue to be probed and pushed towards candidates wishing to reduce the power of Washington DC. The results this November's general election will not change the impetus of the current federal government but a definite unrest will be seen via larger than expected third party and independent votes as well as more then expected incumbent losses (not hard to do). The Republicans could become the break from the hold upon the country of two parties with the shared big central government agenda.

Democrats could renew their hold. So what? It does not matter if it is Democrat or Republican if big central government continues to en mass its dominance. Either the public decides to reject it or not. Voting just Republican or Democrat in the general election ties ones hands to current status quo.

The change when it happens will be in the primaries. Has anyone else noticed how primaries are not in the news much until afterwards? Anyone else notice how all candidates in primaries are not mentioned in the news? Just the big government ones? Hopefully voters will recognize and reject this manipulation in the future.

This post has been edited by Gray Seal: Oct 2 2010, 04:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Oct 2 2010, 05:11 PM
Post #83


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 2 2010, 10:55 AM) *
I've been participating in these kinds of debates for a while, and have noticed a pattern. It generally goes something like this:

1.
Someone points to a particular period when a Republican was in the Oval Office and says "Aha! [fill in the blank with bad economic/fiscal situation of choice]".

2.
I respond with a long-term, by-the-numbers analysis (e.g. Y/Y growth in gov't debt) that grants the "On whose President's watch?" premise and shows that a Rep in the White House is better than a Dem.

3.
To which the general range of responses is:

A. Crickets.
B. Some sort of attempt at diversion/deflection.
C. "Well, it's not THAT much of a difference."
D. "Well, that's interesting, but of course things aren't as simplistic ... reality is more complex ... there are many variables ... etc."
What do you make of that pattern? Are any of the responses valid ones?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Holly
post Oct 2 2010, 06:01 PM
Post #84


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Member No.: 10,953
Joined: February-9-10

Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 2 2010, 04:26 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 2 2010, 10:55 AM) *
Government grows during downturns. Government grows during upturns. Government, lo and behold, just grows.

This needs to change.
And you're going to trust (but verify), based on the legacy of Reagan, the Tea Party, and the Pledge, the Republicans are going to make this happen.

What will you do if they don't? Vote for a third party and let the Democrats renew their hold on government in 2012?


Must admit I chose "hope over fear" and feel that twinge of hope has slipped away. The American Dream that all can live better, consume more and more on a finite orb, is not a Dream; i't's a mass, drug induced, hypnotic delusion!

There's BIG BUSINESS behind the Tea Party Express (koch bothers?) BIG BUSINESS picks and promotes the candidates. Every couple of years we hear all promises about "no more business as usual" and again and again folks swallow the bait and reinstate those same veteran politicians expecting this time they'll find the political will to serve the people of this land.

Nope, members of the congressional-corporate mutually enriching oligarchy don't see the problem.

Our job is to squabble over politics while our pockets are picked. If the media can help divide the people, they've won.

--Holly

This post has been edited by Holly: Oct 2 2010, 06:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 2 2010, 09:04 PM
Post #85


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Oct 2 2010, 12:37 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG)
For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm actually confident that the GOP can be reformed out of just being less profligate than the Dems and into upholding the economic principles in its platform.
I have been watching the Republican primaries across the country. There are talented principled new voices such as Schiff or Kokesh or many less publicized candidates which have been rejected in the Republican primaries. There have been a few shake ups in the primaries here and there. Many of the promoted Tea Party candidates have a pro big central government agenda to go with their limited government lingo. The big government agenda is the neocon pro war position or the theocon pro religion morality in government. The lingo of the new people seems to be shared with the old guard which has been in Washington DC for many terms. There is no hell to pay if most of the old guard are returned with some new neocons and theocons. A reform of the Republican Party will take a dramatic rejection of the present faces and rejection of all big government agendas. The Pledge illustrates that is not the case with the bunch representing the Republican Party in the November general election.

Now, if your optimism is looking beyond this November and the current bunch from the primaries, I agree there is some hope. The new faces were in the primaries in unprecedented numbers. They lost for the most part but the new perspectives have been introduced to some of the public. 15 to 20% does not win elections but it is the beginning of acceptance of our country's current failure. The 15 to 20% signals the potential to further educate the public to supporting reform against big government. Maybe in two years? The possibility is there then but not this time around.
...

You are absolutely correct. This election will likely be no more than a small first step. The needed changes will take a few more, and lots of groundwork in between.

After all, to paraphraze the President's recent remarks, ...

It took time to free the slaves [thank you, Pres. Lincoln, R]. It took time for women to get the vote [with much grumbling from Pres. Wilson, D]. It took time for workers to get the right to organize [thank you, Pres. Hoover, R; Sen. Norris, R; and Rep. La Guardia, R]. It took time for the first Civil Rights legislation to pass (thank you, Pres. Eisenhower, R; no thanks to Sen. Leader and future President Johnson, D; and no thanks to Sen. Thurmond, then-D].

Now is not the time to quit.


QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 2 2010, 01:11 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 2 2010, 10:55 AM) *
I've been participating in these kinds of debates for a while, and have noticed a pattern. It generally goes something like this:

1.
Someone points to a particular period when a Republican was in the Oval Office and says "Aha! [fill in the blank with bad economic/fiscal situation of choice]".

2.
I respond with a long-term, by-the-numbers analysis (e.g. Y/Y growth in gov't debt) that grants the "On whose President's watch?" premise and shows that a Rep in the White House is better than a Dem.

3.
To which the general range of responses is:

A. Crickets.
B. Some sort of attempt at diversion/deflection.
C. "Well, it's not THAT much of a difference."
D. "Well, that's interesting, but of course things aren't as simplistic ... reality is more complex ... there are many variables ... etc."
What do you make of that pattern? Are any of the responses valid ones?

Sorry, I should have made it crystal clear that the above general range of responses are given by the very "someone" mentioned in step "1".

So, given that clarification, what is YOUR assessment of said responses? Do words like "weasely", "hypocritical", "nit-picky", etc., come to mind?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Oct 2 2010, 09:42 PM
Post #86


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 2 2010, 05:04 PM) *
Sorry, I should have made it crystal clear that the above general range of responses are given by the very "someone" mentioned in step "1".

So, given that clarification, what is YOUR assessment of said responses? Do words like "weasely", "hypocritical", "nit-picky", etc., come to mind?
I imagine you're a decent and civil person. Most people are. It's a shame those qualities don't come through when you post here.


I would say that responses C. and D. are valid and appropriate.

C. "Not that much different," is ... well ... not that much different. If you say oppose certain actions or policies, but support actions or poilcies which are very much the same as the ones you say you oppose, it's reasonable to point that out and ask for an explanation.

D. "There are many variables ..." is true, and is the basis for your dismissal of the decrease in federal employment when Truman was president. Surely you don't intend to deride a debate tactic you use yourself. Do you?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 2 2010, 11:32 PM
Post #87


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Oct 2 2010, 05:42 PM) *
...
I would say that responses C. and D. are valid and appropriate.

C. "Not that much different," is ... well ... not that much different. If you say oppose certain actions or policies, but support actions or poilcies which are very much the same as the ones you say you oppose, it's reasonable to point that out and ask for an explanation.

D. "There are many variables ..." is true, and is the basis for your dismissal of the decrease in federal employment when Truman was president. Surely you don't intend to deride a debate tactic you use yourself. Do you?

I'm afraid I disagree.

If someone who does the "Here's how bad things suck under a Republican President!" thing by pointing to a particular Republican President's "watch", when presented with information that, while granting his "On which party's President's watch" premise, provides perspective that actually ends up favoring Republican Presidents, responds with "Well, it's not THAT much of a difference", he is a nit-picker at best and weasel at worst (depending on how the response is worded, etc.).

If someone who does the "Here's how bad things suck under a Republican President!" thing by pointing to a particular Republican President's "watch", when presented with information that, while granting his "On which party's President's watch" premise, provides perspective that actually ends up favoring Republican Presidents, responds with ""Well, that's interesting, but of course things aren't as simplistic ... reality is more complex ... there are many variables ... etc.", he is an unadulterated hypocrite/ideological hack.

ps:
It occurs to me that the reason why you thought that I was directing the words ""weasely", "hypocritical", and "nit-picky" at YOU is due to a sloppy tense change from one sentence to another on my part. I should have followed the sentence "So, given that clarification, what is YOUR assessment of said responses?" sentence with "Would words like "weasely", "hypocritical", "nit-picky", etc., come to mind?", as opposed to "Do words like "weasely", "hypocritical", "nit-picky", etc., come to mind?". My apologies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Oct 3 2010, 12:11 AM
Post #88


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 4,392
Member No.: 10,303
Joined: January-17-09

From: Michigan, U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 2 2010, 07:32 PM) *
If someone who does the "Here's how bad things suck under a Republican President!" thing by pointing to a particular Republican President's "watch", when presented with information that, while granting his "On which party's President's watch" premise, provides perspective that actually ends up favoring Republican Presidents, responds with "Well, it's not THAT much of a difference", he is a nit-picker at best and weasel at worst (depending on how the response is worded, etc.).

If someone who does the "Here's how bad things suck under a Republican President!" thing by pointing to a particular Republican President's "watch", when presented with information that, while granting his "On which party's President's watch" premise, provides perspective that actually ends up favoring Republican Presidents, responds with ""Well, that's interesting, but of course things aren't as simplistic ... reality is more complex ... there are many variables ... etc.", he is an unadulterated hypocrite/ideological hack.
Oh. Is that what I did? Where did I do the "Here's how bad things suck under a Republican president" thing? I've been saying that generally the Republicans do no better than the Democrats on government employment as a way to point out the hypocrisy of the Pledge.

We've discovered that government employment decreased in the first two of Reagan's eight years in office but increased in the next six - all of which ISN'T "that much of a difference" (if you say oppose certain actions or policies, but support actions or poilcies which are very much the same as the ones you say you oppose, it's reasonable to point that out and ask for an explanation); and you discounted the decreases in government employment during the Truman administration on the basis of the "things aren't that simplistic" argument that you say is the hallmark of the unadulterated hypocrite/ideological hack.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 23rd, 2018 - 11:49 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.