My definition of the current Republican Party?

If there are 6 bottles of beer on a table there are literally 6 beverages. I am drinking one of those beers, you tried with leftie speak, to tell me not to finish the other 5 beers. Then you tried hurling a leftie insult because I got under your skin.
You said "Try not to finish the entire 6 pack in one sitting" Therefore you have just tried to tell me what beverages I can and cannot drink. There are 6 of them you told me try not to finish all of them. If I want to drink 6 beverages as opposed to one beverage who are you to tell me I cant drink the other 5 beverages? But at least you are starting to realize 6 beverages are "different" than one beverage.
Baby Steps. And I can do this much longer than you can.

 

It's really difficult to conduct any kind of rational argument with a conservative when they post ridiculous statements like that. Impeachment! The word is tossed around by Republicans like it's an everyday occurrence. You use the idea of impeachment for purely partisan purposes. That's not oversight. It's the actions of a bunch of nut jobs looking for a reason...any reason to unseat the guy they hate. They couldn't beat him in two democratically held elections, so they look for absurd ideas like this, even though there are no grounds. The best oversight is the ballot box. What you need to accept is that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If you lose, running off on a tangent calling for impeachment makes you look foolish.

They can do that if there are grounds for it. Otherwise they risk outraging the country and especially the people that elected them. A witch hunt is not oversight. It's partisan politics at its worst.

Nonsense.

More nonsense. It's obvious that you oppose a path to citizenship for young people brought to this country.

Here's a list of Executive Orders since Ike.
Dwight D. Eisenhower 484
John F. Kennedy 214
Lyndon B. Johnson 325
Richard Nixon 346
Gerald R. Ford 169
Jimmy Carter 320
Ronald Reagan 381
George Bush 166
William J. Clinton 364
George W. Bush 291
Barack Obama 157

If you have issues with a president going around congress, you'll have to go back quite a way and condemn the entire process or face your own hypocrisy. If you are going to target Obama for this, then it has more to do with your hate for him, then for anything to do with the process. There are a number of things that the President can order when congress refuses to act. If you wanted to impeach him for doing that, you'd have to argue for impeaching almost every president.

 

I find it interesting that the title of this thread is " My definition of the current Republican Party?" and I find the Republicans arguing over the size of soft drinks, and complaints about immigration, and executive orders. It seems that they can't actually defend Republican ideas or conservatism in general. So we get one Red Herring after another to change the topic.

 

Executive orders are not the same thing as ignoring the law. Congress makes the law. I know you find that really inconvenient when you would rather have a dictator but that is how our Constitution is set up. You seem to think laws are something to be ignored.

BTW, you used a logical fallacy. Can you guess which one?

 

Well, since Congress is in the back pockets of corporate entities, there isn't much hope in that scenario, is there?

 

Your obsession with "leftyness" is pretty obvious. There's nothing that you have to say that has the fortune of getting under my skin. It does appear that you have a lot of issues that indicate just the opposite.

You have 6 bottles of exactly the same thing. The more you drink the more alcohol you consume and the more your senses become affected as it appears they are right now. It's still beer.

In one sitting?? That wouldn't be smart. Especially if you are planning to drive anyplace. Are you smart?

Tell you what ace, drink yourself silly. Polish off a whole case. Get falling down drunk. I really don't give a crap. If you do, you'll regret the consequences of your actions. You will get pulled over, you will get a DUI, your picture will be in the paper, and your name will appear in it as well. Your entire family will be embarrassed that you could be that stupid, and if you end up causing an accident and killing somebody, you will face prison for manslaughter at the very least. Now if you choose...and the choice is yours, you can go through all of that and tell the cops and the judge and your prison buddies that will use you as their boy toy that at least you stood up to the "lefty" that suggested that you avoid being an idiot. And only a conservative would consider that worth it. You can tell everyone it was 12 different things that you drank. And when they ask you what it was you can tell them...I had 12 Buds, and each Bud is different from the next. Good luck with that.

And you can try that argument with the cops and the judge and see how far you get. Just tell them that you were drinking six beers, or twelve beers and that's different from drinking one beer. They'll agree with you. They'll also tell you that in doing that you tested over the legal limit for alcohol and that's the bottom line, because what matters is not whether you drank a Bud, followed by a Mich, followed by a Sam Adams, followed by something else. Nor will it matter if you drank 12 of the same thing. The court won't say that you drank 12 different beverages. They'll say that you consumed 12 beers and your alcohol content proved you were a drunk. It was all beer, and you're drunk as a skunk and going to jail for being drunk and disorderly, you'll be slapped with a DUI and ruin your life in trying to prove a point. And in the end, you just may realize that you were wrong.

I'm sure that this and this are something that you think are admirable conservative traits, but when you can't grasp that drinking one beer or drinking ten beers doesn't make one bit of difference if what you're drinking is beer, beating your head against a wall, or the proverbial dead horse is expected.

 

Anytime a president uses an executive order, he's going around congress, and since congress makes the laws, he's going around the law in that sense. However it's clearly within the presidents right to issue an executive order if it's within the framework of the constitution. If YOU in your great legal wisdom can convince your representative that he's doing something illegal, then make your case. There are no cases of this president ignoring the law. The fact that you don't understand the law is not the same as him ignoring the law. We had a president a few years back who ignored the law. He violated the 4th,. 6th, and 8th Amendments to the Constitution and on top of that violated Habeas Corpus which he had no Constitutional right to do. That's ignoring the law. Where was your outrage over that kind of over reach?

Obama is no dictator. I already posted a lengthy post on the Bush administration concept of a Unitary Executive. That's about as close to a Dictator as we'd want to get. You can call Obama a dictator, you can claim he's ignoring the law, you can shoot your mouth off about hundreds of things, but what's really going on here is your hatred for Obama for being Obama. If you'd just admit that, at least you'd be more honest about it instead of trying to fabricate things out of whole cloth to disguise your hatred.

If you had any concept of logic you'd simply point it out as I have with you and others, rather than trying to play a guessing game. If you think I have, then point to it, and we'll be more than happy to take it apart for you to show you where you went wrong.

 

Your thinking of Bush and Cheney and their Unitary Executive concept. Yes they were taking powers that didn't belong to them. They did that to undermine congress and especially the Supreme Court. You're from Indiana. You guys nominated a total jerk for the Senate and dumped Richard Lugar who easily would have won re-election and you'd have had a Republican seat in the Senate. But in your great wisdom you put up a moron who lost. Congratulations. Your wisdom in showing your idea of governing is something to behold. I wouldn't put much stock in your assessment of what's logical or what's politically viable.

 

He doesn't think they are admirable conservative traits. he thinks they are effective troll traits. He has been trolling you mercilessly, getting you to respond at great length over and over with minimal effort. Of course he can keep it up longer than you can. (And a comment like that is a blatant 'tell' that you are being trolled.)

One thing about trolling is that to do it, you don't have to have an honest point. Really, it's better that you don't--it's more provocative. You just have to pretend to have a point. Anybody can do that all week.

 

And the Executive isn't?

- - - Updated - - -

Not following the law is the definition of illegal activity and when the Executive does it, unconstitutional.

 

Today's Republican Party, is much harder to defend than the one I grew up with. That's for sure.

 

Hint: Bush is no longer President.

 

One could argue that as well, no doubt. Certainly seems like corporate America owns everybody at this point.

 

There is nothing wrong with capitalism. There is everything wrong with crony capitalism.

 

I said
"Now if you'll excuse me, Im going to go get a beer....ohhh wait er um I mean a Blue Moon taken from the bottom right drawer of my refrigerator, uncapped with a standard bottle opener that came with my grilling set, served in a chilled 16oz glass that I will be drinking on my back porch where it is currently 69 degrees Fahrenheit not Celsius. I plan on drinking this slowly over a period of ~20 minutes. (in case anyone was confused about which beverage I am drinking)"

you said (insult)
"As for your beer...nobody's really interested in any of that. Enjoy your beer. Try not to finish the entire 6 pack in one sitting. It's likely that somebody else will suffer for it."
I said
"LOL now youre telling me what beer to drink?"
You said (lie, I clearly stated I was drinking a beer)
"Again what possible difference could the brand make if your intention is to polish off a six pack? You'll get drunk regardless."
(insult)
"Your obsession with "leftyness" is pretty obvious. There's nothing that you have to say that has the fortune of getting under my skin. It does appear that you have a lot of issues that indicate just the opposite."

I said
"There are 6 of them you told me try not to finish all of them"

You said (insult)
"In one sitting?? That wouldn't be smart. Especially if you are planning to drive anyplace. Are you smart?"

You said (and I love this one......as I clearly stated I was going to drink a beer and this is what a lefty brains concocts all on its own. Fascinating)
"Tell you what ace, drink yourself silly. Polish off a whole case. Get falling down drunk. I really don't give a crap. If you do, you'll regret the consequences of your actions. You will get pulled over, you will get a DUI, your picture will be in the paper, and your name will appear in it as well. Your entire family will be embarrassed that you could be that stupid, and if you end up causing an accident and killing somebody, you will face prison for manslaughter at the very least. Now if you choose...and the choice is yours, you can go through all of that and tell the cops and the judge and your prison buddies that will use you as their boy toy that at least you stood up to the "lefty" that suggested that you avoid being an idiot. And only a conservative would consider that worth it. You can tell everyone it was 12 different things that you drank. And when they ask you what it was you can tell them...I had 12 Buds, and each Bud is different from the next. Good luck with that.
"
(you catch your breath then keep going ...lol with this nugget)
"And you can try that argument with the cops and the judge and see how far you get. Just tell them that you were drinking six beers, or twelve beers and that's different from drinking one beer. They'll agree with you. They'll also tell you that in doing that you tested over the legal limit for alcohol and that's the bottom line, because what matters is not whether you drank a Bud, followed by a Mich, followed by a Sam Adams, followed by something else. Nor will it matter if you drank 12 of the same thing. The court won't say that you drank 12 different beverages. They'll say that you consumed 12 beers and your alcohol content proved you were a drunk. It was all beer, and you're drunk as a skunk and going to jail for being drunk and disorderly, you'll be slapped with a DUI and ruin your life in trying to prove a point. And in the end, you just may realize that you were wrong."


And lastly I say. My Sixpack does not contain the same beer. It is a variety pack and some are non alcoholic beer. You told me not drink the rest of the six pack, therefore which of the five remaining beers am I not supposed to drink? Please name the remaining five beers you told me to try not to finish. Or you just lost the argument.

P.S. You are the one that attacked me over the use of the phrase "soda" versus "size soda". Talk about a complete over-reaction. Then when you are proven wrong you have me......well read your own flogging of the dead horse above.
As far as everyone else.... enjoy the read. These people are deciding your healthcare.

Also please try not use insults. (That is if you want me to think I didn't get under your skin. Hurling insults is the telltale sign that someone is irritated.)
Do it again Ill report it.

 

Hint...your argument is one from hypocrisy. You can't very well applaud one thing while condemning the same thing from another source. It makes your complaint phony.

It's like watching the "birthers" that go nuts over claiming that Obama was not born here, and now trying to figure out what to say about Senator Ted Cruz who wants to run for President but has this issue over being born in Calgary...which happens to be in Canada, which the last time I checked was a foreign country. Oops..there goes the birther argument.

 

Hint: Bush is still not President.

 

I know that many of you cannot give up hope that everything the current administration does is Bush's fault. Hint: Bush isn't President anymore.

 

You can't be a democrat and claim you are logical at the same time. Emotional yes, but not logical. Otherwise you wouldn't run around voting for their solutions otherwise you would ask yourself "when have their ideas worked in the past?", and find yourself empty handed.

 

I don't like American wire tapping. After all if Reagan can beat the Ruskies without it we can beat the jihadis without it. When bush or Obama did it. There you go. Feel better? Now can we get back to the train wreck that is the current administration?

 

LOL, Bush did it too is not much of a refutation for your claim. It is a logical fallacy meant to deflect. Hint: Bush isn't President anymore.

 

Ahhh, but his crimes against humanity run very deep, and will last for decades, young grasshopper.

 

For one thing; I don't drink so I never get drunk. For another, you still haven't cited any insult toward you. You just insulted me, but I'll let that pass. Now...show me where you were insulted. You can do that right?

 

I'm not a Democrat. I'm and independent. And yes I apply logic consistently. Emotion is your province. Not mine. When there are problems, an intelligent person looks for solutions to them. Your idea appears to be to ignore them. That's not logical. That's an emotional appeal to tradition and a logical fallacy. Liberal ideas that have worked are plentiful but you ignore them. The women's right to vote was a liberal idea, that conservatives opposed. Child labor laws were a liberal idea that conservatives opposed. Social Security was a liberal idea, that conservative opposed. Civil Rights was a Liberal idea the conservatives opposed. Voting rights was a liberal idea that conservatives opposed. Medicare was a liberal idea that conservatives opposed. And obviously Obamacare is a liberal idea that Conservatives opposed.

Conservatives rely on the gut. Not the intellect. The "Gut" is a repository of dark and ancient fears. It knows what it knows because it knows how it feels. That's emotion son. Feelings. Intellect is pitted against feelings on the ground that it is somehow inconsistent with warm emotion. It is pitted against character, because it is widely believed that intellect stands for cleverness, which transmutes easily into the sly or the diabolical. If something feels right, it must be treated with the same respect given something that actually IS right. If something is felt deeply, it must carry the same weight as something that is true. If there are two sides to every argument - or more importantly, if there are people willing to take up two sides to every argument - they both must be right or, at least equally valid.

Conservatives are believers. They go to church a lot. Belief is an investment in emotion. Not reason.
This response by you; "Emotional yes, but not logical. Otherwise you wouldn't run around voting for their solutions otherwise you would ask yourself "when have their ideas worked in the past?", and find yourself empty handed." isn't a logical argument. It's simply a leading statement that assumes it's own truth without ever demonstrating what makes it true. It says; If "you" were logical you wouldn't look for solutions to problems, assuming that their solutions have never worked in the past. So YOUR solution is to ignore solutions to problems, by maintaining the status quo. The solutions are challenges to parochial thinking which is ALWAYS rooted in a belief in a conservative ideology that can't demonstrate what makes itself true.
Liberalism always challenges the status quo.

Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values. Once again, a demonstration of emotions from the conservative.

The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and
conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. More emotional response.

The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility ( More emotional response) is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it.


Thus, hatred ( More emotional response ) for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative. ( emotions at work...Not logic or reason)

Letting go of the past is difficult to do. An entire race of people becomes an easy scapegoat for one’s own failures. Hate is passed on from one generation to the next. Parents teach their children to hate.

The cure for hate is education, so every attempt to keep schools segregated was an important factor. Every attempt to de-segregate schools was resisted. Integrated schools are a way of leveling the playing field and a sign of equality and equality is a challenge to the social fabric. The more narrow the view point, the more ignorant the person becomes and the easier it is to promote fear and fear promotes hate. Fear always promotes hate. And Hate is always an emotional response.

The conservative mind embraces a narrow point of view. It doesn’t like being challenged. It resists new information. A liberal mind by definition is open to change, but change always threatens the existing order, so the liberal is not to be trusted. He is feared, and hated because he challenges the existing order. Fear and hate are emotions, and I think I've illustrated pretty clearly now, just who it is that is acting on emotion as opposed to logic or reason.

It's so easy to simply toss out the Red Herring and the fallacy of begging the question as you did in your statement. You should understand, if you're going to make any claim toward the use of logic, that your statement was a logical fallacy. If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. So...I wouldn't go around trying to make the claim that logic is your friend. I don't think from your posts that you ever made its acquaintance.

 

Your whole post became irrelevant at "i am an independent".