I am going to take Jaime up on her invitation.


1. From the thread “Dog Fighting”


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=224788

2. From the thread “Elvira Arrellano Spanish for Rosa Parks”

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...=15366&st=0

3. From the thread “I am not gay. I have never been gay."


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=225023

4. From the thread “2008 nominees-already decided?”


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=225088

5. From the thread “Was the US Constitution Amended in Order to Authorize Federal Courts t”


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=225033

6. From the thread “Sen. Larry Craig: Setup? Stupid? Gay?”


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=225028

7. From the thread “Mandatory Doctor Visits?”


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=225256

8. From the thread “Paying for Student Athletes: Just Around the Corner?”


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=225337

The eight examples above are from the same post. In my opinion they offer a stock answser, the evil welfare-warfare state as a stock answer regardless of the question being debated.

Question:

Is this debating or pushing an agenda?

If it is debating, is it an effective tatic?

de·bate /dɪˈbeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-beyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.


So , when debating , parties are always pushing an agenda.

Of course , in tyrannical governments the powers-that-be do not debate. For example, they may choose to merely invade a group's compound , kill their dogs and then incinerate everyone including their children.

PS If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

If by kitchen you mean , then I've been here more than three years.

Clichés like the one you quoted and repeating the same phrase at every opportunity does not create much heat, just annoyance. Swatting flies and putting out house fires are challenges of totally different magnitude.

Is that because you hate it when someone constantly and consistently remind you that you and yours are perpetrating a fraud.

Welfare state bureacrats believe that they have the right to invade the private property of Americans in order to prevent us from owning machine guns, smoking marihuana, engaging in prostitution, etc etc.

Warfare state bureaucrats believe that they can invade every country on the face of mother earth and then slaughter its citizens in order to enforce DC's agenda. But when those affected retaliate the administration claims that they have no idea why they attacked us. Even when they know why they attacked us they claim that they have a right to hide the truth from the populace.

Well, you are just repeating something, nothing to back it up but opinion. Your best argument is "oh, the SCOTUS got it wrong in 1805" or some crap like that. You aren't debating at all- you are forwarding an agenda. Same mantra, different subjects, no real logic or reasoning to back it up.

And that is coming from someone that generally agrees with you- but you really have no links, evidence or substance to your points to get your idea across- in fact, it is so off topic sometimes, you have to wonder what the heck you are talking about. Usually- I just ignore your posts and skip over it.

Some substance instead of cutting a pasting something from a discredited or partisan source would be nice.

Take your post on the Libyian/Pan Am bombing- your only sources were British tabloids. Not exactly credible.