Republicans cannot govern and here is what I think is why

Being a Jazz musician does not make you educated on Jazz or clever.
I lived in Brazil for 5 years, nobody is named Da Silva that I met?
How long have you lived in Brazil? How many times have you visited Brazil.

I just gave you a friendly idea, that is all.

 

NO YOU ARE NOT, you keep on squirming, insulting, obfuscating.

We can all look at Silva's OP and see if it rises to the level of a Straw man argument.

The government is a problem, according to Silva is conservative philosophy being defined by Reagan.
Here is Silva's comment, no link or source, which is what Silva continually accuses everyone of doing. Yet my comment is linked and sourced.

Was Reagan defining the fundamental philosophy of conservatism, at the end of a longer sentence? Or did Reagan state the government is the problem to the crisis we face because the government created the crisis?
Inaugural Address 1981 | Ronald Reagan (reaganlibrary.gov)

 

Talk about arrogance. If I count the posts in this OP alone, that are unsourced, not linked, and are simply posts that are flames and trolls, then you have 32,000 posts of poppycock.

Conservatism, Silva made the unsubstantiated claim that,

There is no link, ever from Silva, to the source. I linked and sourced and showed how Silva builds a strawman, taking this point Reagan made about issues, and using it out of context. I also showed that Edmund Burke was the one who defined modern conservatism and not Reagan.

Conservatism, is older than our country's founding. The fundamental philosophy of conservatism is as follows.
The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism - Intercollegiate Studies Institute (isi.org)

 

That is an arrogant way to declare your OP as to not being a false premise that is cherry picked and taken out of context.

 

Does a source, prove Silva's OP is truthful. It could but in this case there is no source!

Yes, no source, but how can I say that, Silva declared he used AI (where and how is a mystery, it was simply declared). Silva cut/pasted and linked to an article.

Yet here I am, admitting that, and stating factually there is no source.

Silva did a google search, of Silva's opinion. Silva found an article that parroted Silva's opinion. Silva cut/pasted/linked.

But, when you think about the trick Silva played on himself it is clear that there is no source to, "government is the problem", Silva says, it. Google says it. The article says it. But where is the source that the quote came from? Where is there any sort of scholarly discussion.

Silva copied someone's political propaganda, summarizes the propaganda as his own. Then Silva proclaims it is fact because he can link to it?

I should just post my opinion, unsubstantiated, with no links or sources on line, pay google so that my opinion is first in a google search. Then when I link to my opinion on line, I am right and it is fact, and I am using a source so nobody can say I am wrong.

This OP is not sourced.

Artificial Intelligence? Where when how, a link to said AI? If AI is applied to a pile of bullshit, AI will summarize Bull ****.

An article? Of opinion, propaganda, cherry picking? Where are the sources that the article used?

 

I will take a look at a source.

Who wrote the article and when. A black student wrote the article during the Trump presidency.

Of course, everything is about, Conservatives are racist, unsubstantiated, unsubstantiated sources will be used.

Silva's OP is based on a students political, bigoted, rant calling me and the Tea Party Racists.

Silva, you are disgusting. I lived in Brazil, I married a black woman, my children are black. I am a conservative. I read the literature of the John Birch Society. I have books written by and on the John Birch Society.

Your source is pure bullshit, or what I like to call, Fiction Based on Fact.

This is what we have to fight against, those that were the racists, redefining history, accusing those that did fight for the Civil Rights that Democrats fought against.

 

32,000 posts, it is safe to say less than half are sourced. It takes 0.34 seconds to search google. It looks like you have about a 170 minutes at the most, invested in those 32,000 posts.

170 minutes spent on 32,000 posts. 0.34 seconds a post, if we credit silva with 30,000 links.
I like the movie, Idiocracy.

 

I'd point out the idiocy in your post, but why bother.

Oh, what the hell. I have a standing policy on all my posts, and if you were familiar with me, which you are not, you'd know that my policy is always:

'substantiation provided on request' on those that are not provided in the post.

But you, you take the attitude that you don't need to.

That's the difference between you and me.

 

Please quote the line in the article where he calls ALL JBSers, ALL T party members, ALL Trump fans, and Trump, as racists.

The operative word is ALL, because your claim does not qualify your claim as anything less than 'all'.

In fact,

• The article does not explicitly label the JBS, Tea Party members, Trump, or his fans as “racist.”
• However, it does discuss the society’s ideas, which have sometimes intersected with extremist views.
• The JBS’s role in influencing conservative thought is explored without making direct accusations of racism.

but you are pettifogging on the non salient point.

The salient point, and my point, is that there is a through line from the JBS, through to the T party, the Freedom Caucus, and now the MAGA movement.

That's the point you didn't even respond to, the SALIENT point I am making.

 

What you need to do is substantiate.

Vacuous claims are not arguments, (well, they are weak arguments) they are opinions and if no path of reasoning is provided, they are vacuous. Opinions are nice, but I'm interested in what the source of your claims are. That's where the debate lies.

My policy is always 'if no substantiation is provided, just ask'.

Courtesy is the opposite of arrogance. You're the one who claimed your facts are beyond reproach, unwilling to substantiate your so-called 'facts', and that is the very definition of arrogance.

Take your challenge of my source on the black author, you challenged his authority. That's a fair argument. I struck back on why I thought your challenge was lackluster. And so the debate moves forward.

That's what debating is all about.

That's why you have to substantiate your claims of fact (which you were unwilling to substantiate), to forward the debate.

Vacuous claims of fact are WORTHLESS, and do not move the debate forward.

 

Yes, we all know about conservatism, no one actually asked you, did they? No, they didn't, and surely not I. I was focusing on their attitude towards government, and by that fact, you assumed I was negating the broader aspects of conservativism, but that wasn't my point, not at all-to discuss the broader aspects of conservatism, so your flailing off onto a discussion of conservatism, which wasn't under discussion, is rather pointless.

What's amazing is how you fail to understand what the actual subject under discussion is.

You made a lame comment:

"you have already proved you are not here to have a discussion."

My mention of the number of posts, 32,000 (approx) was TO THAT POINT, and only to that point. What was your response? Well, it was TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THAT POINT you went off to pontificate about conservatism, as if anyone really needs that lecture, the one we heard in poly sci back 50 f*cking years ago. Please, when you new to a forum (I see you joined a long time ago, but you've barely posted much during that time, so you are, for all intents, and purposes, a newbie here), you should survey everyone's posts, get a feel for who is who, what they know, make sure of it, before you MAKE YOUR LAME ASSUMPTIONS. Capiche?

So, what I'm seeing from you, is a problem common to Trump, when asked or a statement is made, both he and you go off into all sorts of tangents unrelated to the point at hand. Trump is much worse, of course.

Having an argument folks like that is really exhausting.

Now, if you can't stay on point, then there is no point in having any discussion with you on anything. It would be like getting in a cab, asking
the cabbie to take you to point A, and the on the way to point A, he finds it necessary to stop and C, B, F, & G, and why not H, to fogg the landscape even more, eh? Now, you're not quite that bad, but you're bad enough. Hell, since 2013, you've made 559 posts, and got only 10 likes? That's 1.7%? Hell, apparently you the least popular guy here. Not that popularity means much, it shouldn't, but you'd know you are either 1. an idiot (that no one likes) 2, a genius (that no one understands). Now, I'm not going to say which, I'll leave that for others to decide, but I do have a hunch,. eh, eh.

1. You pettifog, incessantly.
2. You flail off point, and off topic.
3. You make assumptions, incessantly.

now, either correct these deficiencies in your comments, or pester someone else.

Not interested.

 

I'd told you my choice of surname wasn't meant to be clever, so why imply I was trying to be clever? Since you can't possibly know me or my education level, why even say something like that?

I find that rather amazing.

I'm here for one reason only, to debate politics and related subjects, and gauge reactions to arguments I make. So, if you don't mind, let's stick to the topic.

I'm sure you've heard of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, right?

I know three Da Silva's all from Brazil. The stats report about 6 million folks have that surname. It's common. I don't know any Smith's, but it's a common name, rest assured.

You mentioned 'Garota De Ipanema', and that's why I told you I was a jazz musician, that you don't need to lecture me on Bossa Nova, or Jazz. But, if it was just chit chat, we'll leave it there. I'm not here to discuss music. I have other forums for that.

 

What, specifically, was wrong with his post? Congress can't enforce its legislation. It can only make referrals to the justice department, part of the administration.

 

You have written on this forum many times that you are here to debate. Why are you pontificating instead?

 

Republicans cannot govern and here is what I think is why.

Federal government is not manageable by either party. It has drifted so far from the intent of the founders and grown to its current unmanageable state that it now does whatever benefits itself. It has nothing to do with political parties. It has to do with the natural corruption that occurs from power. The founders could provide an outline but they couldn't overcome human nature. It is what it is and we can thank the voters for letting it happen. Voters, like politicians, are also self interested and corrupt.

 

garyd's logic is flawed, that congress does not govern, just because it is a 'deliberative body', which is nonsense.

A deliberative body and an enforcement body are both aspects of governance, hence the term "government"

garyd's only argument is that a deliberative body, i.e., congress, is not an aspect of governance, and his reasoning isn't more compelling than my above statement.

You see, since I'm arguing that the Repubs in the house are in disarray, therefore, 'republicans cannot govern', and he is arguing that congress is not an aspect of governance, as if this actually refutes my argument, which is doesn't. Because, even if he were right, it doesn't refute that Republicans in the house are incompetent which is the SALIENT point.

But, congress is government, and by that fact, part of the larger umbrella called 'governance'. They provide oversight on various aspects of other branches, and society in general as they create the rules that govern our lives. garyd's premise is if it isn't 'enforcement' it's not 'governance', and that defies logic and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the breadth fo the term. That is why I made teh ccomment, "One can take a horse to water, but he can't make him drink'. I offer impeccable logic, and he still rejects it.

Not much I can do, after this. But, we could dig even deeper, to wit:

The Necessary and Proper Clause is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution. The language of the clause is as follows:

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This clause grants Congress the authority to pass laws needed to execute its enumerated powers and other responsibilities assigned to the federal government under the Constitution. It is sometimes referred to as the "Elastic Clause" because it allows Congress to expand its powers to meet the needs of governance.

 

I'm sorry I asked.