Republicans cannot govern and here is what I think is why

Oh bullshit. Reagan was into small government, because 'governmeent is the problem'.

https://factmyth.com/factoids/reagan-said-government-is-the-problem/

Substantiate your claims otherwise you are blowing smoke.

My statement that Reagan said 'Government is the problem' as a philosophical underbase, permeates conservativism. Now, there is some truth to it, but it's not the total picture. Politicians and some oligarchs conspired to create the federal reserve system. Thing is, but for politicians (Woodrow Wilson, in particular) there would have been no federal reserve system.

So, but for politicians, the appropriations system as we have it today, would not exist, but these are the sources of our problem, it is systemic, and no one party has a monopoly on the flaw of the design. A normal person would check his bank account to see if he has enough money to buy something, but the government passes spending bills, without checking any account balances, and leaves it up to the FR to fund it, which borrows and prints.

As George Carlin pointed out, the politicians in government were ELECTED so isn't it more true, then, that the real problem are with 'we the people'?

Viola, the truth emerges.

The real truth is this: We get the government we are, the government we deserve.

Assuming democracy works as it should, which is does, barely, and often not so well. I think the first thing we should do is fix democracy so that it works for 'we the people'.

 

You fail to substantiate your assertions, AND, your ability to articulate is sloppy.

And, your tone is smug and arrogant.

one more item:

Claims that do not rise above the empty 'you are wrong' (for example, 'your argument has errors' ) are not arguments. Without substance, they are non arguments, which is to say, they are vacuous and have no argumentative value.

Such is what permeates your prose, and it's really piss poor stuff.

Apparently you are a legend in your own mind.

I'll acknowledge substance, where it occurs, and it hasn't in your verbiage.

 

What the f*ck are you talking about? I wasn't talking about 'grammar' I was talking about inarticulate and sloppy prose and failure to substantiate your claims, diagram the damn sentence. That was the 'errors' both you and garyd make.

Jeezus f*ck you're a trip.

I can live with sloppy articulation, it's abound on this forum, but vacuous claims, that you need to substantiate, otherwise you are blowing smoke.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Don’t forget that the one before Trump started a war in the wrong country and managed to bungle it.

 

This trope is so old and hoary that right wingers were yelling it before there even was a Department of Education.

 

Republicans govern fine. Bribed Joe tries to lock up his opponents and can't even talk.

Biden: "Four more years. Pause."

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/stat...n^s3_&ref_url=https://instapundit.com/643741/

 

They do?

I’msure you can list the accomplishments.

 

Avoiding reality does not look good on you.

 

Biden: "Four more years. Pause."

And he's accomplished lots of inflation and lots of wars.

 

I would be shocked if you knew anything at all about the Department of Education.

 

what i know is that it should not exist as a federal department

 

It know it didn't become a full department until carter having previously been part of Health and human services which was created under FDR, I know it had done little more than add more bureaucrats to an establishment that already far more dead weight than any other organization of comparable size in the US and many other countries as well and is the primary reason that the US spends far more money that any other country in the world on education per capita and on average get worse results.

 

it violates the tenth amendment for starters, wastes billions of dollars, and doesn't do squat in improving education

 

I'm sorry, I don't engage with such smug arrogance.

Anyone can make a claim and claim it is fact. Any cheap yahoo can do that.

If you want to be serious, if you make a claim of fact, you'll need to substantiate it, otherwise you are blowing smoke. I don't do your work for you.

You are not the arbiter of fact or truth, no one is.

That's how it works, and on internet forums that has always been how it works, and if you can't understand that, let me know and I will place you ignore, because if that is the case, I can't take you seriously.

In fact, that you don't understand this destroys your credibility.

Let me know if you want me to put you on ignore.

 

hahahahahaha
I already said that to you, you are plagiarizing me
and trolling,
I post fact, when I post facts, I am in fact the arbiter of truth

 

silva, you are the definition of smug arrogance, you prove it in this one post

 

I did not make a claim, I stated a fact
the fact I stated was a quote from Reagans inaugural address
my quote was spot on,
my quote from Reagan showed you cherry picked
silva cherry picked, without substantiating the claim
there was zero insults, flaming, nor opinion in my first post

I extended nothing but warm friendship to you silva, in my first post
silva's replay was smug, insulting, condescending and nothing but trolling and flaming ignoring every point I made

silva, that is right, you do not work for me, you work for yourself, so much of your OP is unsourced
ai created your opening statement?
source the ai
instead of being a human, you are going to post ai and have ai do all your work for you

silva does not do his work, ai does
silva left a least half a dozen sources, silva does not do silva's work

 

By silva's rules, we must consider silva's credibility destroyed
silva does not link and quote, when challenged silva breaks down and trolls and flames those who point out errors
do I want silva to put me on ignore
silva, my posts pretty much answer that question
the posts I made, contained nothing that silva should take offense to
the posts like this one, are addressing silva's flaming and trolling, silva's smug, arrogant, plagiarized in part, responses

silva, do whatever makes you sleep at night
but know this, I will rip apart every thread you start with facts
as I did this one
now I will go back, to your OP, quote my factual response, and the factual response where I doubled down on the original
not for you silva, but to show, teach, educate everyone else reading this thread, how easy it is to destroy the arrogance of silva

 

Where is the source for the AI? Link? You do not do your own work, silva???

Are we suppose to address the AI?
The AI is full of errors, the article it summarizes is full of errors

The Republican Party has a clear agenda, silva spells that out, The party's ideology of limited government
The Republican Party, obviously has public support, 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, 8 years of Obama, 4 years of Trump. Looks like as much support as Democrats, that is even. Congress? Most likely even.
Either way the AI says we do not have support yet controlled the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme court.
Much in the AI is never addressed by silva, is it suppose to stand unquestioned, dictated?

 

Look at that, I already addressed the AI, that would make post #97 my third post addressing the AI

 

how do we delete a post with errors

 

No quote or link establishing this opinion as fact. I am told I have no credibility, by silva, without doing my work, with links and sources. Where is the link and source proving this is a fact.

I have already addressed this fundamental error which is the premise of silva's opinion.
Post # 43 addresses the error silva made
Post # 65 addresses the same error silva made
If the premise is false, the entire OP falls like broken glass.

The fundamental philosophy of conservatism was not "crafted" by Ronald Reagan as Silva states. That would be Edmond Burke. I guess I am lazy and not doing my own work if I do not link and prove that fact when replying to a lie that is not linked or sourced? Silva says I have no credibility unless I link and source, yet I had, do, and will so as needed. Yet here I am replying to Silva's unsourced cherry picked quote misused to disparage and mischaracterize conservatism and the Republican Party.

Government is the problem, is the last four words in a sentence, which part of a speech. Since when does the last four words of a longer sentence, part of an idea being expressed, define anything? It does not.
As we can see, Reagan eloquently spells out the issues Reagan is facing, then defines what the problem to those issues is. Never ever did this apply to the fundamental philosophy of conservatism,

Let us see silva ignore, or finally respond to the fundamental problem with this thread
Inaugural Address 1981 | Ronald Reagan (reaganlibrary.gov)