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: 6,377
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  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
BoF
post Sep 26 2010, 12:31 AM
Post #21


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 25 2010, 07:16 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 25 2010, 07:06 PM) *
...
Heh. Considering a fair number of the remainder are only slightly less hyperbolic - "Obama is a Socialist bent on destroying capitalism!" - ...
...

Care to provide a linky-poo to that?

I thought you were intellectualy above baby talk akaCG, but since you require a “linky-poo,” here’s one from Fox Business Channel.

QUOTE
His recess appointment of the new health czar, Donald Berwick, helps confirm that impression. Remember, he's the guy who says that the only way to improve health care in America is to force the redistribution of wealth
in this country. That's the kind of socialist nonsense that you hear in academic circles all the time.

And in academic circles, this talk usually goes unchallenged. These people believe that folks are poor because other people are rich. They even extend that belief to the whole world, believing that the only reason poor countries are poor is because they're exploited by rich countries. That's called "dependency theory," but it's really just warmed over socialism. And it's got the same emotional core as socialism, drawing its energy from guilt, envy and jealousy. When these ideas are isolated in academic circles, they're just another theory to argue about late at night, over coffee and cigarettes.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/i...bama-socialist/

This post has been edited by BoF: Sep 26 2010, 12:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Sep 26 2010, 12:44 AM
Post #22


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

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 25 2010, 07:16 PM) *
(snip)


The preceding has been an exercise in why it's wise to stick to discussing issues that are relevant rather than try to surf the Internet to count coup on the other guy you're debating with. It gets personal very quickly, and in no way advances the topic under the debate, as what some blogger or message board poster said here or there months or years ago is almost never relevant to an issue of national politics.

To mollify your sense of dignity, akaCG, yes, the nasty racists were on the other side. My comments were restricted to the difference in the Chicken Little behavior that you'd been decrying.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 25 2010, 07:06 PM) *
...
Which the GOP, in their plan, have stopped short of calling for. ...
...

Don't tell me, "Raptavio". Tell "MMN".

Unless, of course, you actually agree with "MMN" that "stopped short of" = "they're just helping justify armed insurrection without actually coming out and saying so".


I think they're dancing on the line, and deliberately so. They're making the dog whistle on purpose; they are not, however, deliberately fomenting violence.

People like Sharron Angle and others ARE, however, well over that line, which, as these are the GOP nominated candidates for Congressional elections
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Sep 26 2010, 01:07 AM
Post #23


*********
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(BoF @ Sep 25 2010, 08:31 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 25 2010, 07:16 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 25 2010, 07:06 PM) *
...
Heh. Considering a fair number of the remainder are only slightly less hyperbolic - "Obama is a Socialist bent on destroying capitalism!" - ...
...

Care to provide a linky-poo to that?

I thought you were intellectualy above baby talk akaCG, but since you require a “linky-poo” here’s one from Fox Business Channel.
...

"Raptavio" and I, at THIS point in the thread, are currently involved in a discussion/debate that involves quite a few outside-AD variables.

Generally speaking, most people recognize when that sort of thing is happening.

Apparently, you're not one of them, "Bof"-poo.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 26 2010, 02:18 AM
Post #24


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 25 2010, 08:07 PM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 25 2010, 08:31 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 25 2010, 07:16 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 25 2010, 07:06 PM) *
...
Heh. Considering a fair number of the remainder are only slightly less hyperbolic - "Obama is a Socialist bent on destroying capitalism!" - ...
...

Care to provide a linky-poo to that?

I thought you were intellectualy above baby talk akaCG, but since you require a “linky-poo” here’s one from Fox Business Channel.
...

"Raptavio" and I, at THIS point in the thread, are currently involved in a discussion/debate that involves quite a few outside-AD variables.

Generally speaking, most people recognize when that sort of thing is happening.

Apparently, you're not one of them, "Bof"-poo.

Could I remind you, ever so gently, that this board is not your private domain? The same goes for Rap.

My screen name is BoF, got that - BoF - not "Bof"-poo, thank you. You will kindly address me by my screen name.

BTW: You didn’t respond to the Fox Business Channel link I provided.

Would you like to try?

Here it is again for those who are a little slow.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/i...bama-socialist/


This post has been edited by BoF: Sep 26 2010, 02:32 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Sep 26 2010, 02:48 AM
Post #25


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 25 2010, 07:31 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 25 2010, 07:16 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 25 2010, 07:06 PM) *
...
Heh. Considering a fair number of the remainder are only slightly less hyperbolic - "Obama is a Socialist bent on destroying capitalism!" - ...
...

Care to provide a linky-poo to that?

I thought you were intellectualy above baby talk akaCG, but since you require a “linky-poo,” here’s one from Fox Business Channel.

QUOTE
His recess appointment of the new health czar, Donald Berwick, helps confirm that impression. Remember, he's the guy who says that the only way to improve health care in America is to force the redistribution of wealth
in this country. That's the kind of socialist nonsense that you hear in academic circles all the time.

And in academic circles, this talk usually goes unchallenged. These people believe that folks are poor because other people are rich. They even extend that belief to the whole world, believing that the only reason poor countries are poor is because they're exploited by rich countries. That's called "dependency theory," but it's really just warmed over socialism. And it's got the same emotional core as socialism, drawing its energy from guilt, envy and jealousy. When these ideas are isolated in academic circles, they're just another theory to argue about late at night, over coffee and cigarettes.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/i...bama-socialist/

Where in your quoted text does it say that Obama is a socialist? I see where the health czar is quoted with a statement that is easily read as socialist. I read where "in academic circles" there are socialist views. No where do I see anything remotely accusing Obama as being socialist.

Second, I don't think the direction you are trying to change the debate between akaCG and Raptavio is the direction they are going. But I guess it is your choice to jump into the middle of a debate between two other members to inject your off topic point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post Sep 26 2010, 03:05 AM
Post #26


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Let's keep focused. What happened to you/others at other websites is irrelevant to the debate we are having in this topic. Stay on topic and remain civil.

TOPICS:

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

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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 26 2010, 03:23 AM
Post #27


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(scubatim @ Sep 25 2010, 09:48 PM) *
Where in your quoted text does it say that Obama is a socialist? I see where the health czar is quoted with a statement that is easily read as socialist. I read where "in academic circles" there are socialist views. No where do I see anything remotely accusing Obama as being socialist.

Second, I don't think the direction you are trying to change the debate between akaCG and Raptavio is the direction they are going. But I guess it is your choice to jump into the middle of a debate between two other members to inject your off topic point.

First, thanks for replying to my link.

Second, this is a public board, where anyone can respond to anything someone else has written.

As it was once explained to you:

QUOTE
Sorry, tim - that's not the way it works around here. If you post something to a public forum rather than a private message, any member of the public who has registered here can engage you on anything you post.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=274195

This post has been edited by BoF: Sep 26 2010, 03:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Sep 26 2010, 07:08 AM
Post #28


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

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 24 2010, 10:44 AM) *
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?


The "pro" here is the Republicans are feeling extremely confident they are poised to wrest the gavel away from Pelosi and Reid in November and have reversed their previous strategy. That strategy was to say little to nothing specificially and instead endlessly repeat, "I'm a Republican. The Tea Party rules and Democrats drool. Did I mention I'm a Republican?"

Now they believe in order to seal the deal they need to offer some specifics. Such as they are, they aren't all that and a bag of green onion potato chips as SLATE's James Ledbetter observes:

QUOTE
Opposition to spending is the scalding water that fuels the Tea Party, and so the Republicans who controlled Congress for more than half of the last decade now say that the GOP "lost our way" on spending during the Bush presidency. But what do Republicans plan to do about government spending that they favor, or indeed created? If they once were lost, have they now been found?

If you really think that the problem with the economy and/or the federal budget is as simple as too much government spending, then you have to point your finger squarely at the national Republican Party. Of the six recent Congresses essentially controlled by the GOP, from 1995 to 2006, not one ever reduced federal outlays. (The last year in which federal outlays were lower than the year before was 1965, when Democrats ran both the White House and Congress.) As soon as Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House in 2001, spending really took off, with more than $100 billion added to federal outlays every year that Bush sat in the White House (considerably more than either Bill Clinton or Bush 41).

Incumbent Republicans love Social Security for the same reason that all incumbents do: because voters love Social Security. More than three-quarters of all American adults say they want to know that Social Security will be there when they retire, even if they feel they won't need it. That's why Republicans did nothing to stop spending on Social Security, from about $433 billion in 2001 to $586 billion in fiscal year 2007 (the Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 election). If a Republican president working with a Republican-controlled Congress couldn't stop the growth of Social Security spending, there's little reason to think it will happen any other way, Tea Party or no Tea Party. And if today's Republicans have a credible plan for trimming this budget item—or even slowing it down—they're being quiet about it.

The same goes for Medicare. A strong majority of Americans opposes tinkering with Medicare, and among older Americans—who are more likely to vote—opposition is 5-to-1. And so, Republicans did nothing to halt Medicare's explosion from about $217 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $372 billion in fiscal year 2007. No one thinks that, as America's population grows older, there will be any stopping the growth in these programs—and that's half the federal budget right there.

Next up is defense and security, about $1 trillion a year. Maybe, just maybe, we'll get a tiny peace dividend from the end of the military mission in Iraq, but some of that will be eaten up by increased veteran benefits and services, to say nothing of Afghanistan. Both wars were started by a Republican president and supported by Republican members of Congress. Lately, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has made some very cogent points about wasteful military spending. But they are not much different from what John McCain said through much of the '80s and '90s, and his impact on military spending has been nil. And the fiscal year 2011 budget authority for the Department of Homeland Security—a Republican creation—is a hefty $56 billion. How much of that will Republicans cut? Crickets.

When Republicans denounce "government spending," then, they're talking only about government spending that they don't like: the TARP (a Republican creation), health care reform, stimulus spending, the auto industry bailout. But the plain fiscal fact is that the national Republican Party has been addicted to its own forms of government spending at least since the Nixon administration. The very notion of taking a "pledge" evokes their addiction—This time it's different, we swear!

Sure, the pledge tactic could have considerable short-term political traction, especially as the economy continues its anemic growth. The Republican Party has long shown it can win elections by hollering about taxing and spending. But winning elections won't solve the longer-term problem that the GOP will face from the Tea Party's embrace—which is that, unlike congressional Republicans, these people actually believe the rhetoric.

http://www.slate.com/id/2268458/


As Lisa Murkowski, Robert Bennett, Mike Castle, Rick Lazio and several other endorsed Republican regulars who lost their primary bids to Tea Partiers, while the GOP has tried to absorb the upstarts into the big tent as just another loud fringe mentaltiy such as the Moral Majority that can be placated with a little raw meat and a lot of lip service to their issues, but some of these particular party crashers have made it clear they value ideological purity over loyalty to the bosses. It remains to be seen if the GOP will change them or they will change the GOP.

QUOTE
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?


As more than a few conservatives within and without the Republican Party seem underwhelmed by this document, I'd have to say many of them have concluded they knew the Contract With America, liked the Contract With America, and this sir, is no Contract With America.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 26 2010, 08:32 AM
Post #29


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

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,377
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

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



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Sep 26 2010, 03:08 AM) *
As more than a few conservatives within and without the Republican Party seem underwhelmed by this document, I'd have to say many of them have concluded they knew the Contract With America, liked the Contract With America, and this sir, is no Contract With America.


That's what I see too. There's no originality to the tactic, which is okay. How original can one get in politics? Humans have been practicing it for at least 6,000 years and probably more like 15,000.

The glaring disconnect is the thing about repealing health care reform and then replacing it with the same stuff. The argument in defense of this is that not all of the same stuff would be replaced. Let's say that is true, which is quite a stretch of faith after witnessing the behavior displayed over the past two years (rounding up). If the Republicans don't get a super-duper majority in the Senate, which would have to be 61 seats, the Democrats will simply filibuster such a move. It becomes moot and thereby a false promise.

It's like promising the moon. That's impossible to carry out, so it's just a line to get laid, an expression of desire rather than a promise. In this case the desire is to get elected, not to reform health care.

Perhaps Republicans and the unaffiliated are supposed to read between the lines. Vote Republican to ensure that the filibuster will clog the Senate for another two years. However, that can't be said straight out for obvious reasons. So rather than admitting the real political strategy, it has to be expressed in terms that seem positive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Sep 26 2010, 09:19 AM
Post #30


*********
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 @ Sep 25 2010, 06:19 PM) *
My point, of course, was to focus on the absurdity to which YOU succumbed when (supposedly gimlet eyes keenly trained upon the supposed sub-surface "code" of the document in question) you engaged in your "Oh my God! Look at this! Didja guys catch this? See how they mentioned the Declaration of Independence and then used the phrase "consent of the governed"??? And then they wrote that the governed do not consent??? You know what that's code for, dontcha??? That's their way of calling the current government illegitimate, just like the Founders did with King George, and telling people they'd be perfectly justified if they embarked on armed rebellion without actually coming out and saying so!" hyperventilating drivel.

Hope that helps.
It does help to explain, yes. You're saying this Repbulican Pledge is merely more of the same sort of thing in which partisans always engage at election time. But is this true?

Your reponse to my post was a sarcastic and exaggerated characterization of my concerns. You did not respond at all to the way in which I differentiated what is being said now from the Conyers/Gore/Raptavio rhetoric of a few years ago:

The legitimacy of the constitutional questions regarding the Bush administration is supported by a slew of court cases demonstrating that ACTUAL constitutional controversies existed.

To this I will add an important bit of context that might explain what you see as my anxiety-ridden and absurd hyperventilating:

I'm unaware of any audience for the complaints against the Bush administration that might have perceived the complaints as justification for armed rebelliion.

In the current situation, we have complaints that are not supported by any true constitutional controversy, but which do have an audience that is already talking about (and, in some cases, preparing for) armed rebellion ... and this Pledge by the national Republican Party lends support and justification to that audience.


QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 25 2010, 07:06 PM) *
... the only real difference I ever saw between the two factions is that the ousted side was willing to make overt calls for violent revolution.
...

Which the GOP, in their plan, have stopped short of calling for.
QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 25 2010, 08:16 PM) *
Don't tell me, "Raptavio". Tell "MMN".

Unless, of course, you actually agree with "MMN" that "stopped short of" = "they're just helping justify armed insurrection without actually coming out and saying so".

akaCG,

I addressed this issue previously:
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 25 2010, 06:41 AM) *
I don't believe for a moment the Republicans actually WANT an armed rebellion - really they just hope to get more of themselves elected come November. But when you tell people they would be justified in armed rebellion as a way to win an election, you're playing a dangerous game.


This post has been edited by Maybe Maybe Not: Sep 26 2010, 03:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Sep 26 2010, 05:38 PM
Post #31


*********
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 @ Sep 26 2010, 05:19 AM) *
...
Your reponse to my post was a sarcastic and exaggerated characterization of my concerns. ...
...

My response to your post was indeed sarcastic. But the exaggerations were all yours, I'm afraid. You wrote:
QUOTE
...
Wow.
...
It is no exaggeration to note that the Republicans liken our current situation to that which justified the American Revolution.
...
... there's something far more dangerous than hypocrisy involved here.
...
We have a constitutional process for achieving consent. We elect a president; we elect the Congress; the president and Congress together appoint the judiciary.

The Republicans, while professing fealty to this system and pledging to return us to its principles, seem to be calling for revolution against that very system. (What else are we supposed to conclude from the references to the Declaration of Independence?)
...
Scary stuff. These are fighting words. This is nothing less than a justification for the overthrow of the government.
...

Thankfully, by the end of your post, even you seemed to have realized that you had strayed pretty far into the weeds with your exaggerations, so you started your concluding paragraph with:
QUOTE
...
I don't believe for a moment the Republicans actually WANT an armed rebellion - really they just hope to get more of themselves elected come November.
...

But then, alas, you pretty much took it right back:
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 26 2010, 05:19 AM) *
...
But when you tell people they would be justified in armed rebellion as a way to win an election, you're playing a dangerous game.
...

Guess you couldn't help yourself.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 26 2010, 07:05 PM
Post #32


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 26 2010, 12:38 PM) *
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 26 2010, 05:19 AM) *
...
Your reponse to my post was a sarcastic and exaggerated characterization of my concerns. ...
...

My response to your post was indeed sarcastic.

FYI

Just so everyone knows where you are coming from, here’s the definition of sarcasm:

QUOTE
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

something that you say which means that using sarcasm (= saying the opposite of what you mean to make a joke) is unpleasant and is not a very clever thing to do 'We're so grateful to you for arriving only 20 minutes late!' 'Oh really, Matthew, don't you know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?'

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Sarcas...est+form+of+wit
(Formatting mine.)

BTW: You still have made no attempt to counter the Fox Business Channel link I provided.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/i...bama-socialist/

This post has been edited by BoF: Sep 26 2010, 07:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Sep 26 2010, 07:49 PM
Post #33


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 25 2010, 10:23 PM) *
QUOTE(scubatim @ Sep 25 2010, 09:48 PM) *
Where in your quoted text does it say that Obama is a socialist? I see where the health czar is quoted with a statement that is easily read as socialist. I read where "in academic circles" there are socialist views. No where do I see anything remotely accusing Obama as being socialist.

Second, I don't think the direction you are trying to change the debate between akaCG and Raptavio is the direction they are going. But I guess it is your choice to jump into the middle of a debate between two other members to inject your off topic point.

First, thanks for replying to my link.

Second, this is a public board, where anyone can respond to anything someone else has written.

As it was once explained to you:

QUOTE
Sorry, tim - that's not the way it works around here. If you post something to a public forum rather than a private message, any member of the public who has registered here can engage you on anything you post.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=274195

And it appears I have done so, but I was simply pointing out how you responded with a completely different line of debate trying to vilify Fox News again, and pointing the debate in the wrong direction. The debate has nothing to do with academic circles or the health czar. But that is beyond your comprehension, you can't help yourself now can you?

QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 26 2010, 02:05 PM) *
BTW: You still have made no attempt to counter the Fox Business Channel link I provided.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/i...bama-socialist/

Hmmm, I think I read somewhere that this is a public forum. I don't think anyone is obligated to respond to any posts they choose not to. Is there a reason you feel someone has to respond to your off topic link?

And before you say anything about me responding to you a second time, it's a public forum, I have the right to do so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maybe Maybe Not
post Sep 26 2010, 08:12 PM
Post #34


*********
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 @ Sep 26 2010, 01:38 PM) *
My response to your post was indeed sarcastic. But the exaggerations were all yours, I'm afraid.
What was exaggerated in what I wrote?



QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 26 2010, 01:38 PM) *
Thankfully, by the end of your post, even you seemed to have realized that you had strayed pretty far into the weeds with your exaggerations, so you started your concluding paragraph with:
QUOTE
...
I don't believe for a moment the Republicans actually WANT an armed rebellion - really they just hope to get more of themselves elected come November.
...

But then, alas, you pretty much took it right back:
QUOTE(Maybe Maybe Not @ Sep 26 2010, 05:19 AM) *
...
But when you tell people they would be justified in armed rebellion as a way to win an election, you're playing a dangerous game.
...

Guess you couldn't help yourself.
I don't understand.

Is there something you don't comprehend about the dangers of the Republicans pandering to and encouraging the more extreme elements of their supporters, but hoping those supporters don't go nuts?
Do you think that kind of thing is safe?
Do you think that's not what they're doing?
Do you think there actually are significant constitutional issues with the Obama administration?
What?

Once again you have merely derided my ideas without providing any of your reasons for doing so. (Good sarcasm, though.)

This post has been edited by Maybe Maybe Not: Sep 26 2010, 08:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 26 2010, 08:14 PM
Post #35


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(scubatim @ Sep 26 2010, 02:49 PM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 25 2010, 10:23 PM) *
QUOTE(scubatim @ Sep 25 2010, 09:48 PM) *
Where in your quoted text does it say that Obama is a socialist? I see where the health czar is quoted with a statement that is easily read as socialist. I read where "in academic circles" there are socialist views. No where do I see anything remotely accusing Obama as being socialist.

Second, I don't think the direction you are trying to change the debate between akaCG and Raptavio is the direction they are going. But I guess it is your choice to jump into the middle of a debate between two other members to inject your off topic point.

First, thanks for replying to my link.

Second, this is a public board, where anyone can respond to anything someone else has written.

As it was once explained to you:

QUOTE
Sorry, tim - that's not the way it works around here. If you post something to a public forum rather than a private message, any member of the public who has registered here can engage you on anything you post.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=274195

And it appears I have done so, but I was simply pointing out how you responded with a completely different line of debate trying to vilify Fox News again, and pointing the debate in the wrong direction. The debate has nothing to do with academic circles or the health czar. But that is beyond your comprehension, you can't help yourself now can you?

QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 26 2010, 02:05 PM) *
BTW: You still have made no attempt to counter the Fox Business Channel link I provided.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/i...bama-socialist/

Hmmm, I think I read somewhere that this is a public forum. I don't think anyone is obligated to respond to any posts they choose not to. Is there a reason you feel someone has to respond to your off topic link?

And before you say anything about me responding to you a second time, it's a public forum, I have the right to do so.


.............................................................................


QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 25 2010, 07:16 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 25 2010, 07:06 PM) *
...
Heh. Considering a fair number of the remainder are only slightly less hyperbolic - "Obama is a Socialist bent on destroying capitalism!" - ...
...

Care to provide a linky-poo to that?


As you can see, akaCG asked for a link that called Barack Obama a socialist.

I provided one, the title of which is It's Official: Obama is a Socialist.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/i...bama-socialist/

I offered no commentary, so it certainly wasn’t Fox bashing.

You responded:

QUOTE(scubatim @ Sep 25 2010, 09:48 PM) *
Where in your quoted text does it say that Obama is a socialist? I see where the health czar is quoted with a statement that is easily read as socialist. I read where "in academic circles" there are socialist views. No where do I see anything remotely accusing Obama as being socialist.

I thanked you.

QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 25 2010, 10:23 PM) *
First, thanks for replying to my link.

I thank you for your second response and your third, fourth or whatever in advance.

I’m also still eagerly awaiting akaCG’s response to the “linky-poo” I offered. Your posting does not get him off the hook.

This post has been edited by BoF: Sep 26 2010, 08:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Sep 26 2010, 08:19 PM
Post #36


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 26 2010, 03:14 PM) *
I’m also still eagerly awaiting akaC G’s response to the “linky-poo” I offered. Your posting does not get him off the hook.

Your continued waiting seems like a child in a corner looking for attention. No one is obligated. You may just have to sit and wait a very long time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 26 2010, 08:22 PM
Post #37


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(scubatim @ Sep 26 2010, 03:19 PM) *
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 26 2010, 03:14 PM) *
I’m also still eagerly awaiting akaC G’s response to the “linky-poo” I offered. Your posting does not get him off the hook.

Your continued waiting seems like a child in a corner looking for attention. No one is obligated. You may just have to sit and wait a very long time.

Thanks again for your input.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 26 2010, 09:24 PM
Post #38


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



What are the Pros and Cons regarding this Pledge to America?
I'll have to go with nighttimer, there is nothing in the republican past that suggests they will cut back on government expenditures. Now raising the deficit that's something else. They go hog wild there. If folks like the Pledge perhaps they should find or create some other party to implement it. I found some of the criticisms, generally at the level of platitudes, supportable but almost nothing that showed a seriousness about bringing forth a positive alternative. Giving a big exemption to the military shows their insincerity is core. Their only relationship to the issue of global warming or for that matter any environmental concern was their announcement that the one weak attempt at lowering carbon emissions, cap and trade, would be smashed. These folks don't seem to know the difference between a sewer and the Garden of Eden.


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?

How about demagoguery? I noticed they threw a nice if oblique bone to Arizona's preemption of the Constitution in the area of managing cross border illegal immigration. So much for their love of the Constitution.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Sep 26 2010, 10:00 PM
Post #39


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



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

Aside from seeing it referred to as 'the worlds saddest to-do list', this pledge of course is almost verbatim to earlier pledges/contracts/promises, etc. I've seen nothing from the GOP that leads me to believe that they care a whit about the consent of the governed. I am of course, basing this on past performance during an Administration of their own party, where they sat timidly while the POTUS violated US law [sometimes the very law he fought to enact] and then lie to the American people about that crime.

The GOP may have had an epiphany, but they're not talking like it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Sep 27 2010, 02:58 PM
Post #40


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 26 2010, 06:00 PM) *
What are the Pros and Cons regarding this Pledge to America?

Aside from seeing it referred to as 'the worlds saddest to-do list', this pledge of course is almost verbatim to earlier pledges/contracts/promises, etc.


It is interesting to note that you're an avid reader of Salon.com. ermm.gif ermm.gif

QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 26 2010, 06:00 PM) *
I've seen nothing from the GOP that leads me to believe that they care a whit about the consent of the governed. I am of course, basing this on past performance during an Administration of their own party, where they sat timidly while the POTUS violated US law [sometimes the very law he fought to enact] and then lie to the American people about that crime.

The GOP may have had an epiphany, but they're not talking like it.

So you don't believe the "we lost our way" line of thinking? You've seen nothing to indicate that the Republicans want to do something different than they did during the Bush administration? Have you heard of this thing called the Tea Party?

Many Republicans have apologized for what happened during the Bush years. They've acknowledged that they made mistakes. How can you sit there and say "they are not talking like it"? That is all they are doing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: November 14th, 2018 - 04:31 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.