Republicans cannot govern and here is what I think is why

Yeah and two plus two equals 36. The job of the opposition is to oppose. Complaining that the opposition won't let your side do all the ignorant crap you want is just sour grapes.

 

kotcher, excuse me, but...

If I tell you, 'The Brooklyn Bridge Fell to pieces', without nary a photo, documentation, substantiation, reportage on authoritative sources, in other words, something more than a empty claim, would you, or any person with a modicum of intelligence think it was true, especially if they didn't know you or heard of you?

Only if they were a fool.

And, so, I find it amusing, kotcher, that you will make such a glaringly vacuous claim, 'my argument fell to pieces', without nary a path of reasoning, let alone other ways to buttress an argument, you know, provide any of the following; supporting articles, documents, essays, anything to substantiate your claim. In fact, you provided absolutely nothing. Any yahoo can say anything, and what is that worth? It's worthless. One can hardly believe my argument 'fell to pieces', based on your word for it, alone. Simply put, you'll have to put some effort into this, if you even can imagine you are my peer in the debate arena. Oh, you are claiming you are some kind of knowledgeable person, but you've provided nothing to back it up.

Tsk tsk, kotcher, try harder, next time, won't you?

What might that be? You've posted little.

My comment was less about the Birchers, and more about Bill Buckley's relationship to them. To wit:

I'll tell you what my recollection of history is, and I'll see if there are any substantive sources to back up that opinion, fair enough? Now, about Bill Buckley and the Birchers......

William F. Buckley Jr. indeed played a significant role in distancing mainstream conservatism from the extremes represented by the John Birch Society (JBS). I remember this vividly as I followed his writings and his (mostly on) Sunday show, 'The Firing Line' throughout the 60s/70s/80s & 90s. Regarding the the Bircher's (heretofore called 'the JBS') efforts were centered around his belief that the JBS's radical views and conspiracy theories undermined the credibility of the conservative movement. Buckley's criticism of the JBS, particularly its founder Robert Welch, was pivotal in preventing the society from gaining a stronghold in conservative politics. He criticized Welch's extreme claims, such as the accusation that President Eisenhower was a communist agent, which Buckley saw as damaging to the conservative cause.

In his role as a leading conservative voice, Buckley used his platform at National Review to articulate a vision of conservatism that excluded the radical elements espoused by the JBS. This included publicly denouncing Welch and urging the Republican Party to distance itself from the JBS, which he saw as fringe and detrimental to the conservative image. This move was seen as a form of "excommunication" from the respectable conservative community, effectively marginalizing the JBS's influence within broader conservative circles.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...ert-welch-conservatism-man-and-his-presidents

In the 1950s, William F. Buckley, perhaps unintentionally, fired the opening salvo in what would become a major battle between him and Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society. ​

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/04/rise-fall-john-birch-society-50-years-ago/

The zealotry of the John Birch Society alienated its potential allies. William F. Buckley, then a rising star in the new conservative movement, denounced Welch and the Society and urged the Republican Party to distance itself from the radical fringe group.​

This strategic distancing by Buckley was critical in shaping the trajectory of American conservatism by reinforcing a boundary against the incorporation of extreme and conspiratorial views into its mainstream discourse. The impact of his actions has been a topic of discussion and analysis within the historical context of conservatism in the United States.

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo123795778.html

...the group’s paranoiac right-wing nativism was dismissed by conservative thinkers like William F. Buckley​

I find it amusing that you lecture me on 'errors', yet you make a number of empty claims without substance, which I find astonishing. You wrote:

Silva, if you are simply searching the internet for the confirmation of ideas you will always find a website which may wrongly, non-factually confirm those ideas. Silva, to present a factual premise, an accurate synopsis of politics, you education has to be much more than listening to television, developing an idea in your head, then attempting to confirm the idea with a google search.
​

Remember, kotcher, my avatar's surname is 'Da Silva', not ''Silva', where 'Da' is the preposition 'of the'.

Now then, isn't that presumptuous of you to assume my information is coming from an internet search? Isn't it presumptuous of you to make assumptions about my education? You know this, how, exactly?

In point of fact, I wrote out my opinion, based on memory (I am, after all, 73), Then searched the internet to find articles which would embolden my opinion. I knew they were out there as I've been reading various magazines, news sources going back some 60 years and I recall them. If they were published, they would be on the internet.

But, even if I hadn't, you have made another grandiose assumption, that even if I did search the internet for information, you've arrogantly assumed I wouldn't fact check them. A good research fact checks, right, kotcher? Did it not occur to you I might have done this?

Now, kotcher, so far, you've made some serious blunders in your rebuttal, making grandiose assumptions about me, which you cannot possibly know. Tsk., tsk.

Given this fact, I'm thinking 'what are the odds he is wrong everywhere else?' I'd say the odds are strong on that point. But, we shall see.

Oh, I can't wait! Dazzle me with your eternal wisdom and knowledge, we, the peanut gallery, will be awaiting with alacrity.

I never claimed 'AI proves me right', you've made an assumption, which is an error. It supplements my opinion, any source can be used to supplement, 'strengthen' one's opinion. That doesn't mean they are not open for counter arguments. I would never make that claim. Or, if I could, I would (and I have, but not that often). So, kotcher, If you have better counter, please offer it. But, saying 'nice try' is not an argument, it's posturing, and if you continue to that pseudo debate trick, I'll call you on it. Be wary of pseudo debate tricks, I know them all.

Once again, you're lecturing me on 'errors' and you have made an egregious assumption, which is an error of sorts, that if I quote a source, be it the internet, or AI (most of which provides annotations/hotlinks to sources) that it 'proves' my argument.

Let's get something straight here and now (I'm reiterating here for emphasis) If I present an argument that I believe is incontrovertible, I will say so. Otherwise, assume that all I'm doing is supplementing my argument, making it stronger, to see if you can do better. But 'stronger' does not equal 'infallible'. Let's be clear on that point, okay?

Now, if you were wise, assume that (the above), and nothing more, and remember, if I honestly believe my comment, argument, whatever, is beyond debate, I will come right out and make that claim, and provide what I think is proof, but proof will always be accompanied with the claim, for without it, it's supplemental, it's 'substantiation' (substantiation makes an argument substantive, it's not 'incontrovertible'. Almost all arguments are debatable, i.e., controvertible.).

Are we clear? Now, I've pointed out the factual errors in your comment, and you have only made vacuous claims about my errors, which is an error of itself, as you have given nothing to back it up, except an opinion, here and there.

Oh, kotcher, do you realize you just expressed a contradiction in terms?
A false premise, by definition, cannot be made infallible. Now, I know what you meant, you've erroneously assumed I'm using AI to make my opinion 'infallible', but that is a false assumption, as explained above, so that is YOUR ERROR.

Now, I don't mean to be nitpicky, but, thing is, if you are claiming I'm making so many errors, that makes you FAIR GAME for criticism on your sloppy articulation, your errors, your flaws, and, yes, your ability to articulate is nowhere near the paragon of debate heaven's lofty perch you imagine you are sitting on. Oh, that didn't occur to you? You're not playing a very good game of debate chess, kotcher, more like intellectual checkers. You're going to have to up your game if you want to debate me, kotcher.

And please, don't lecture me on 'errors', anymore, because, you know the old saying;

Physician, heal thyself.

Tchau

PS, kotcher, use the spell check, alright?
PPS, try harder, okay?

Thank you. The peanut gallery awaits your razzle dazzle.

....with alacrity!

 

PDS; speak for yourself.

 

Yes, and few people on the forum are as all hat and no cattle as the anemic offerings of one, you know who......

Thing is, garyd, and @kotcher appears to be making the same flagrant errors you make, incessantly, is that you fail to substantiate your assertions, and to add insult to injury, you're ability to articulate your ideas are sloppy AF.

 

It's a figure of speech.

But, every debate group has their share of nitpickers.

There is no cure.

 

Whatever.

 

Not the point.

 

Well, you didn't say what the point was.

so, I'll bite. What is it?

 

What did you think it was when you made your response?

 

about the peanut gallery?

 

When an idea is based on lies, errors, fiction, there is really nothing to debate. All we can do is point out the errors.

Public support, the Republican clearly has, had public support. The Republican Party got elected, that proves public support.

Clear agenda? End ObamaCare. Bring back jobs. End illegal immigration. Lower taxes. That is very clear.

Two out of three, complete lies.

 

Next set of lies
An ideology of limited government does not interfere with the issues the GOP prioritizes.
The rest of this statement repeats what was already said. A pretty poor summary. Public opinion is in favor, according to the summary the GOP was elected and controls all branches of government.

 

I doubt Silva knows anything about Birchers hence the error in trying to try to tie them to MAGA. Trumpers (nice insult) are Bill Buckley. Silva got that completely backwards. Of course there is the fact that Bill Buckley was friends with Robert Welsh, helped fund the beginning of the John Birch Society. They did have a major difference in later years. The John Birch society focused on Communism and it's infiltration of our government.

Bill Buckley, can be said, was MAGA and would of been MAGA today.

Were things better during the era of Bill Buckley? As Silva claims. That would be when Black people did have the rights of white people. When Black people had to sit at the back of the bus and could not use white water fountains. The Korean Conflict and the Viet-Nam war began and raged for years. The country was divided as today with massive protests. Students were shot and killed at the Universite's. Unemployment rose dramatically. Inflation rose dramatically. Jimmy Carter and the Democrats got our ambassador to Afghanistan murdered and then did not respond which led to the Iranian crisis where are embassy was stormed and hostages taken and held for almost two years. We also had two gas crisis where a form of rationing was implemented.

I can go on and on. Women had to begin to work, a man could no longer provide for his family, alone.

 

More lies, errors, call it what you must. Silva was able to find a 2017 article to denigrate MAGA, so that shows us that had Silva wished Silva could of checked to see if his OP/Thread, was correct.

Trump was a Republican before he was a Democrat.
Trump gave more money to Democrats at a time while he was a Republican
Trump then registered as an Independent
Trump then became a member of the Reform party, which he quit when the leader of the KKK joined.
Trump then became a Democrat
Trump then became a Republican

A bit complicated to remember, I used newsweek.

Is Trump Republican? Timeline of President's Shifting Political Views After He Sides With Democrats (newsweek.com)

 

The article is very flawed, fundamentally flawed. Littered with falsehoods, lies, ignorance.

Conservative philosophy goes back to Edmund Burke, not in anyway to Ronald Reagan.

'government is the problem', a cherry picked end of a sentence from Reagan's inaugural speech. Silva could of just quoted, 'problem'. Problem would alone would mean nothing, a cherry picked, end of a sentence means as much. Nothing.

First, Reagan eloquently and concisely defines the crisis America is in.

Reagan spells out the crisis we were in, arguably, still in. Then Reagan states what the problem is, not what the fundamental philosophy of conservatism.

As we can see, Reagan states that the government is the problem to the crisis, that the government has created. A huge difference than what is claimed by Silva. A difference so great, that it makes a debate or argument, impossible. Other than to point out the errors, lies, falsehoods, outright hack propaganda that is contained throughout this entire OP, thread.

 

alksjdflkasjdflkjsdflksaj

 

hahahahahah
you just described your own post I am addressing while ignoring the flaws I pointed out.

Are we simply to exchange insults. You should not take it as a personal attack. Your post is filled with lies, lies because you refuse to acknowledge you are wrong.

 

I gave Reagan's speech and showed exactly how the question you asked was in fact a lie. I did this with adding a tirade of insults to a person hiding behind the brazilian flag.

Should we address errors in our english now that you have become the Grammar Police. You have 12 glaring errors in your rant. That makes you a hypocrite.

Sadly, instead of personal attacks which you just began, silva should address the false premise of his opinion piece.

Now we can all see, the 73 year old gets pretty upset when you question the long winded rants glaring errors, and doubles down and refuses to discuss them.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-i-think-is-why.618241/page-3#post-1074768529
I made no claim, I presented facts. When presenting facts to dispel lies, there is no reasoning needed.
Supporting documents? Articles? Essays? Ronald Reagans speech in which silva cheery picked the end of sentence of, quoted and linked to, shows silva has no comprehension skill.

Certainly, when silva made statements such as, "the birchers are trumpers", there are no articles, documents, or essays, to substantiate silva's claim.

silva, there is no rule that I must link, google is not the arbiter of truth, certainly when you simply express your opinion, without anything to back up that opinion, silva should expect no more than silva himself presents.

birchers and trumpers, no such words yet silva is whining over spelling

 

Thank you very much. paddy came back at me as the Grammar Police? 12 grammatical errors in silva's post and the guy comes back at me cause I had one error?

I actually, naively thought, silva would actually engage, and discuss the errors.

But, in not discussing the errors, the lies, it just goes to prove the guy in content to lie and to denigrate those who question his lies.

 

Flagrant errors, as in, using "you're"? Did you mean to say, "you are ability..." or did you mean to say, "your ability".

Use your, to show possession. NOT, you're, or you are.

Flangrant erriors? ahahahahahahahahahhah Yes, flagrant errors, those who become the grammar police are the biggest hypocrites in any forum. Especially when they litter their criticism with flagrant errors.

 

Comment is assumptive and gratuitous, has no argumentative value.

I meant the fact that Republicans have only won the 'will of the people' which is to say, the majority vote, once in the last 30 something years for the presidency.

Why? Replace it with what?

Meaningless statement. America has a labor shortage. Biden has a far better jobs record than Trump.

Comment is simplistic. That would be like saying 'end crime'. We can't end crime, all we can do is try to put a dent in it, Same goes for illegal immigration. one thing we could do, is pass the Republican led Senate Border Bill, but Johnson, under orders from Trump, refuse to put the bill to the floor for a vote, the reason being that Trump didn't want the border problem to be addressed, he wanted to make it a campaign issue.

We have lowered taxes. We need to raise taxes on the super rich.

Your comment are simplistic and not substantive, therefore, they are of no argumentative value.

To fix, focus your argument with more specifics, then substantiate your claims.

 

The right has been paying lip service to 'small government' for over 100 years. When they get in office, budgets soar, deficits swell.

Trump's debt increased by $7.8 trillion.

 

You incessantly mischaracterize my writing. I did not try to 'tie' JBS to Maga,
but....

There is an ideological through-line, political evolution, from The John Birch Society, The T Party, the Freedom Caucus, and now the MAGA movement to the rise of Trump.

https://www.niskanencenter.org/how-the-tea-party-paved-the-way-for-donald-trump/

https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/birchers-matthew-dallek/

https://reason.com/podcast/2023/04/...-birch-societys-deep-influence-on-trumps-gop/

https://politicalresearch.org/2013/12/16/tea-party-john-birch-society-and-fear-mob-rule

Buckley thought little of Robert Welch,

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...-birch-society-history-conflict-robert-welch/

and Trump,

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/william-f-buckley-donald-trump-demagoguery-cigar-aficionado/

If Buckley thought little of Trump, which is true, tried to isolate the JBSers, which is also true as established above, it's presumable then, given the information above, he would have thought little of the MAGA movement.