Republicans cannot govern and here is what I think is why

I’ll take that as clear evidence that you know nothing other than what you bobbed you head to on right wing talk radio.

 

You have my permission to be wrong, not that you need it or require it sense do perfectly well without it.

 

You offered nothing other than repeating the old right wing trope.

That, and your subsequent empty assertions confirms my suspicions.

 

damn

 

I told you the relevant facts. You chose to ignore them.

 

Yes congress should be repealing laws left and right. But voters have allowed politicians to garner and maintain power by spending. They do it to gain some perceived personal benefit from government. Few voters understand that the welfare of the nation is also in their best interest. Voters are the base weakness in our democracy.

 

Conservative philosophy, governing ideology, was not crafted by Ronald Reagan, and is most certain, not the tail end of a sentence in Reagan's inaugural speech.

Edmond Burke is the father of modern conservatism and crafted much of that philosophy.
I will use Harvard, then I will use Stanford University as a source, and what a beautiful source Stanford proves to be. I debated eliminating Harvard and allowing Stanford to shine on its own, but what the hell, I will keep the Democrat controlled Harvard source.
Conservatism and Human Rights - Harvard Political Review (harvardpolitics.com)

And now Stanford. I am not attempting to establish Conservative's founding philosophy. I am simply showing that Edmond Burke, is the modern-day Father of Conservatism and it's founding philosophy, not Ronald Reagan.
Conservatism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Funny side note is the grammatical errors my spell checker is pointing out. Is Stanford correct or microsloth? Did Bill Gates purposely use alternative non-traditional spellings so that we will be confused, thus trusting Bill Gate's products? Relinquishing power of thought through the control of words. Or is Stanford wrong. I guess this is where or resident Grammar policeman needs to dictate which is right. We all know who that is. hahahahahaha

 

congratulations, your comment is total fail.

You provided no substantiation on 'plagiarizing'.

You not know what 'troll' means

And no, no one is the arbiter of truth, to make that claim is the zenith of arrogance, and thus you are projecting.

 

You blow more smoke than anyone I've encountered on this forum.

the classic trait of a troll!

 

You make a claim, you back it up.

We know what Reagan said, the debate is on interpretation.

Moreover, you're just blowing smoke if you can't back up your claim.

 

\

Any fool can claim he is 'right'. That's an impotent argument.

I always provide links on request, you made no such request.

If you knew my posts, which are in the thousands, you'd know I post links often.

You're just blowing smoke.

 

I told you the AI was a summary of the link,. THAT IS THE SOURCE.

Don't vacuously claim the summary is full of errors, STATE YOUR CASE.

 

We know what Reagan said, the debate is on interpretation.

Vacuous claims of 'error' without stating your case is not an argument.

You're the only poster I've encountered in the last 30 years of debating on the internet who addresses me in the third person. That's obnoxious.

Also, You didn't respect my request to use my full internet surname, 'Da Silva' it's not 'Silva'. In Portuguese "Da" is not a middle name, it's a prepositional phrase meaning 'of the' and is considered part of the surname. If you are going to address me in the third person, have the decency to honor that request.

If you do it again, off to ignore land you go.

 

Why are you obsessed with grammar?

IS not modern conservatism about 'limited government' or 'small government' or not?

I will say this, so-called 'conservatives' only pay lip service to it, just look at their spending.

Copilot states: (hotlinks are sources)

1. Richard Nixon (1969-1974):
   
   • During Nixon’s presidency, the national debt increased significantly. However, it’s essential to note that the debt is influenced by various factors beyond presidential decisions.
   • Republican Gerald Ford, who followed Nixon, added another $223.8 billion to the debt during his three years in office1.
2. Ronald Reagan (1981-1989):
   
   • Reagan implemented policies that impacted the economy both positively and negatively. His administration saw substantial increases in defense spending and tax cuts, contributing to the national debt.
   • Under Reagan, U.S. government debt increased from over $2.9 billion in 1913 (when he took office) to over $23.9 billion when he left office in 19892.
3. George H. W. Bush (1989-1993):
   
   • Bush Sr. continued Reagan’s policies, leading to further debt accumulation.
   • His presidency saw significant spending, including military expenses and the Gulf War.
4. George W. Bush (2001-2009):
   
   • Bush Jr. faced challenges such as the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War. These events significantly impacted spending and contributed to the national debt.
   • His administration implemented tax cuts and increased defense spending.
5. Donald Trump (2017-2021):
   
   • Trump’s presidency saw a substantial increase in the national debt. The debt grew by $8.18 trillion during his term, representing a percentage increase of 40.43%.
   • Factors contributing to this increase included bipartisan votes on COVID-19 relief, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (backed by Republicans), and other spending measures3.

These are debt increases during specific presidencies45.

 

silva, go ahead and ignore, you have already proved you are not here to have a discussion.
Respect, has nothing to do it with shortening your choice of names to silva
How about I change my name to, "the honorable sir edmund above god burke", and then accuse of being disrespectful if you simply shorten that to god?

You are way too emotionally invested.

silva, if I wished to be disrespectfull I would call you saliva, that is pretty good, when you put me on ignore, I will refer to you as saliva, after you put me on ignore silva, that way you wont be here to start reporting it

lighten up, I started out very nice to you, you replied like an uptight prick, in my opinion, now is your chance to correct that

 

Congress creates the debt, the budget, not the president. And at that, there is a lot more to the budget than making a shopping list.

co-pilot, I figured you could not think for yourself silva

 

Nice, trying to label as a troll when I use your words, that makes you a hypocrite and indicates you are trying to cause trouble.
How come I can not use your words, which describes you.
Troll, you post you just made is pure trolling.
Is this going to be our relationship, you consistently trying to best me in insults, flames, and trolling?

Silva, your posts, not just to me, but to others are full of insults, flames, and trolling. And the idea that I am blowing more smoke than you ever encountered, is projecting, you are the one blowing smoke.

 

silva, the debate is not on interpretation

The only thing any of us can do is point out that cherry picking makes the cherry picker wrong.
If you take something out of context, the meaning is gone, changed. Period. That is not up for debate, I gave you a fact.

It is like you, your name, people assume a brazilian flag represents a brazilian, as your user name indicates. When you apply it to yourself as you do, it is out of context. We have no idea you are not brazilian until you hit us with your tantrum (in my opinion) dictating that we are suppose to read your profile before we respond.

Well, if we are suppose to read your profile so that you don't denigrate us, the same applies to your cherry picked comment. Do as you dictate to us, go to the source, and read it, then comment. As I was wrong to assume you are a cool brazilian and not some bitter (in my opinion) old man, you are wrong when you cherry picked. That is your rule, follow it.

 

Well, exuuuuuuse me. I would of, personally, sent a private message with this kind of stuff instead of exhibiting this arrogance and condensing attitude in a thread I made. I try to keep my threads clean, welcoming. I think it lacks tact, in my opinion.

But seeing how you like to play I can play as well.

Did I mention I lived in Brazil. Living their I can offer you some ideas on your user name and avatar, that is much more clever than what you have chosen. There is nothing in your avatar and name which reflects what you just described

I would go with this for your avatar
Jobim, for your user name,

pretty great huh! I think if you search you could find a better pic than this one. And yes, I know I am suppose to link and quote where I get stuff from.

Jobim, of course is the great brazilian Jazz musician
The Girl from Ipanema - Wikipedia

The avatar idea come from, because I, was there, at the bar, where the lyrics were inspired by a girl walking by.
sometimes I am simply brilliant.
Bar Garota de Ipanema (The Girl from Ipanema Bar) - Rio de Janeiro (wikimapia.org)

 

Unless you can back them up, you're just a legend in your own mind.

All I see from you is blowhard bluster and bloviating.

Now pester someone else.

 

Unless you can back them up, you're just a legend in your own mind.

Linking to the inaugural address does not prove squat.. If I link to the encyclopedia, does that prove any claim I make if it asks the other to fish for it?

No, does not, Provide a QUOTE,

All I see from you is blowhard bluster and bloviating.

Now pester someone else.

 

Plagiarize? What, you're an author of creative work, now?

Don't quit your day job.

Give me a break, what a joke,

 

Excuse me, I have almost 32,000 posts, numerous threads, a number of which have garnered over 1000 - almost 2000 posts, made on this forum.

Clearly, you are not paying attention, let alone do you do your homework.

congratulations, you've dispensed a perfectly structured, text book strawman argument.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to debate a strawman, and the correct rebuttal is merely to indicate it, and poof! It's debunked.

No, but the concept called 'courtesy' eludes you, and your excuse is lame.

You were nice to me? You were arrogant, self-serving, unenlightened, uninformed, lazy, not doing your homework, among other things, towards me. One has to be prickish to respond to any post by you. You leave no choice.

So, let's go to your first, 'nice', post. Let's take a look: Now, first, I'm going to qualify this effort, your first few paragraphs were friendly, but they were assumptive, which kinda ticked me off, but they were reasonable assumptions.
they were nice, but things took a decidedly different turn, changing the tone of your first post more in line with my above characterization, and I will focus on that part of your first post. To wit:

Such a gratuitous comment is a grandiose assumption, and weasel words, as all 'everyone knows', or 'everyone does' or anyone would, etc., are. It's gratuitous because it does not contribute, whatsoever, to your point, if you are, indeed, making a valid point, so, let's move on.....

Another assumption. You know this, how?

You see, kotcher, all I'm seeing from you thus far is piss poor work, you're hardly a seasoned, let alone, studied, debater.

That's a strawman, no, the comparison doesn't work, because it's 'not like'.
Not at all. Reagan said that in context, the but the context doesn't really change the meaning of the phrase. The context just expounds upon it. The essential color of the phrase doesn't change, not in hue, not at all. This is precisely why I didn't feel the need to broaden the quote.

This doesn't mean that republicans believe that 'government is always the problem', but the phrase, 'government is the problem' underscores much of their thinking. Clearly, that phrase is foundational to his famous quote, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." You can hardly convince me of otherwise, I've been studying politics since the Viet Nam war was hanging over my head when I was classified 1A in the draft.

Such a comment amounts to condescension, a form of posturing.
Such a trick, a pseudo debate trick, does not actually improve your argument.

No, as I previously explained, it's not wrong when context doesn't change the color of the phrase quoted. thus far, you haven't provided evidence of your claim.

No, cherry picking implies selecting a fact, to the exclusion of other facts which, if not included, would not otherwise prove your point. You have failed to prove or state your case that is persuasive to that claim. Vacuous claims are not arguments.

Now you are patronizing me. If you had something that was a modicum of edifying, I would. But, sorry, not seeing it. Oh, I'm returning the favor to you, as I write. But, alas, your over inflated ego will probably kick in and not grasp it. Rest assured, if you honestly believe you are being impressive, you have failed.

The phrase 'government is the problem', it's color does not change when the full quote isn't included. I already explained that to you.

Those details are unimportant to his point, which was his conservative philosophy. You could have listed an assortment of government issues and applied his 'government is the problem' philosophy to it. You appear to suggest that it is. That is a flaw in reasoning on your part.

I've been doing this a long time, given the caliber of your post, I sure as hell am not going to seek your advice on such matters. You're not telling me anything that I don't know, and you're doing a lot of bloviating that is not reality, on top of it.

More patronizing, ad nauseum.

It did, did it?

And you expect me, after all your incessant nausea, to take your word for it?

I think not.

Oh, the world is full of nice, but incredibly unenlightened, people. You flatter yourself.

No, the stench of your believing your claims of fact are not debatable and not necessary to substantiate has permeated all of your posts, from the beginning.
The immense ignorance inherent in that belief cannot be understated.

To reiterate my sig:

I find it a waste of time to have an adult conversation with people who resort to and traffic in cheap shots, failure to substantiate claims, self serving remarks, rant words, grandiose assumptions, cavalier broad swipes, hyperbolic characterizations, snarky one liners, sarcastic retorts, loaded terms, thought-terminating cliches, tired tropes, questions with assumed premises, etc., etc.

And you're in there, somewhere, but where? -- it matters not.

I hereby grant you your wish. Off to ignore land you go.

You may have the last word, I could care less.

 

I chose 'Da Silva' not to be clever, but to be boring. In Portuguese, it is as common as 'Smith' is in English, and that's why I picked it. I chose the Brazilian flag for two reasons, it works with my avatar, and it's very easy to pick out of a list of images on the forum indexes

I'm a jazz musician, over 60 years now, and you're going to educate me?

You sure make a lot of assumptions. You do realize that is a bad habit?