why should we? and let alone how is that important? don't get me wrong, i could care less about both parties, as they're both ran by corrupt a**holes that could care less about the common person like us, and are only out for themselves. That's why you'll notice in EVERY presidential election the candidates spend more time saying how bad the other guy is versus the actual issues. therefore, why should we care? what makes you think any other party is better than the republicans? they're both ran by greedy and self centered jerks. therefore, if you want me to believe the republican party is the worse, your going to have to explain to me why first.
I was going to comment but you have taken the words ride of this saddles mouth. Hear Hear...well put. ....Bravo....I'm behind you all the way, of false promises and their to serve themselves not the people.
I think you missed out on the most historic campaign and election this country every had. Barack Obama never had a bad word to say about any of the other candidates. And to this day he tries to work with everyone to make this country a better place for us all. Of course, he is a politician. But, our responsibility is to pick the people we can to run OUR country. You have just as much responsiblity to this a better country as the politicians do. If you think you have to, pick the best of the worst. But, pay attention and vote.
if you boycott republicans, and think that democrats are going to make things better...
... boy... were you born yesterday? or are you just blind?
Boycott all Republi-crats and vote for a third party. And fast.
The "are you blind?" thing is old and really unproductive.
And I hate to break it to you but no third party is going to accomplish anything much any time soon.
OH man, thanks for clearing that up Sab. That was awesome how you enlightened me.
The "hate to break it to you" thing is pretty old and really unproductive as well, jerk.
Be careful of the words you speak and do not get carried away with insults some of the words you have been speaking could get you banned.
Be constructive when posting and try not to offend anyone, it is a debate not a place to abuse each other.
I could never afford to buy a Republican anyway. :-)
Here here, you have my support. As well as 97% of Americans support as well. Remember they spend big bucks on the net, so it may look like they have more followers than they really do. We just need a bigger voice than them. Perhaps that is our character though, we do not believe in the insanity that they tend to bank on, time and time again. Notice I said "bank on" lol
Too late... we are boycotting Progressives, already.
Your welcome to join in though.
Got a better Idea, how about we boycott all the socialist liberals and you? And I suppose you can add the reps in to...get a clue dude, all politicians including your beloved Barack Hussein Obama are corrupt...what needs to be done is go back to to the beginning and run things the way they were meant
I'm with you.
Get them the hell out of here.
Go to Dubai with Cheney...live like you want there!!
No taxes on your income. Servants to do your dirty work.
You never have to associate with a "plebian" or a dirty liberal. Or a person of color, save to boss them around.
Go away. America would be better off without you.
And all those people who are WITHOUT INCOME, so Repubs can better their chances at re-election: remember WHO did this to you!
Party of no. Party of Corporate control. Party of you go to war, I have better things to do. OUTTAHERE!!!!
Every single one of your arguments could be made against the democrats.
Really? Who is trying to do something bout all of them?
Who is standing in the way?
Pretty obvious, and pretty obvious why.
Just think what hero's they will be should they win in November, and then implement everything the Dems are trying to do now!
They are the worst kind of snakes I've ever seen. The Brood of Vipers.
ugh, i hope they don't win in november
I just wanted to add that "passing legislation" does not mean "good for society"...
If it did then hitler woulda been awesome
What are you supporting when you boycott the Republican Party? Communism? Socialism? Your OP is incomplete.
What are you supporting when you vote for the 'Pubs? Racism and plutocracy?
Can you point out that platform on the official Republican Party website? Because if you can't you're really not contributing to any serious discussion are you?
as much as i hate democrats AND republicans, you're asking Evan Hutchinson to do something that you didn't do yourself.
Can you point to the platform on the official democratic website that says they support communism and socialism?
I mean, I agree, the Democrats are Socialists, but all that hutchinson did was do the same thing you did.
Republicrats are nonsense - vote for a third party.
Forget parties. Learn to think for yourself and parties won't matter.
Republican candidates should be boycotted because among other reasons they have tried to block just about every Obama program from health reform to economic recovery measures without offering their own program in the public interest. If for no other reason they should be boycotted for scuttling the unemployment compensation extension recently passed by the House and scuttled in the Senate. Republicans also have a sorry record on environmental issues according to the League of Conservation Voters.
http://michiganmessenger.com/35182/hoes … ion-voters
Pete Hoekstra skips votes on unemployment compensation extensions:
http://michiganmessenger.com/39323/hoek … nsion-vote
So the Republican candidates should be boycotted because they offer voters an alternative platform to what the Democrats offer?
What happened to being tolerant to diversity? Was it all just lip service?
I guess it was!
The Republicans really haven't offered credible alternatives to many problems--health care, Social Security, tax reform, anti-recession measures or much of anything else. The GOP is in disarray, trying to take advantage of the Tea Party movement and voter dissatisfaction and fears about unemployment and the national debt. They haven't offered a coherent program other than trying to sabotage just about every Obama proposal.
Who decides creditability?
Are democrats saying there are no credible solutions offered from the other side? I will say this again, it is not the job of the opposing party to ensure that the other parties agenda is satisfied. It seems to me that irregardless of what is offered by republicans that the democrats and the POTUS will ignore it in favor of their agenda.
You have a point about it not being the job of the opposing party to ensure that the other party's agenda is satisfied. However, the Republicans recently had six years of free reign and offered up tax cuts for the wealthy, two ill-conceived and unnecessary wars, and a failed attempt to privatize social security.
Since then, they've offered up nothing new, so why would we want to revisit that?
How do you know what they have or have not offered up? This is my problem with having these types of discussions, You and I have no earthly idea what is being offered, we can listen to each side and debate what they are saying but how do we know they are telling us the truth.
I do not like what I see happening in Washington, I do not want more government. That is what the democrats are offering, there is a significant slide away from that big government plan, whether the republicans have anything to offer remains to be seen but what Obama is offering is disliked in a big way.
Are you saying you have no idea what the Republicans did when they controlled the presidency and Congress for six years?
I'm saying that I've seen nothing new since then, and I surely wasn't pleased with their recent performance, so why give them another chance now?
No, I didn't say that.
I know you haven't seen anything new, I haven't seen anything new, but it doesn't mean that there isn't anything new. You are aware that Bush cannot ever be elected again, right? Just as Obama is a different type of democrat than Bill Clinton is, so goes the republican party.
Okay, then I guess I'll be on the lookout for that. Should this "new" and "different" type of Republican ever decide to come out of hiding and share those "new" ideas, I want to spot it before it darts back into hiding.
That won't work either. The system is still here. Even if elected, he will either obey or get thrown away.
Do you mean the Ron Paul of earlier years who actually had a few good ideas, or the present Ron Paul who is Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?
"tax cuts for the wealthy"
Tax cuts for all tax payers.
Yes, but the wealthy received the greatest benefit from the tax cuts.
I'm really not here to rehash all of that; it's old news.
I am actually surprised that the NY Times wrote a reasonably objective story. The top 5% of wage earners pay 60% of the taxes, this isn't disputable. If that group gets a tax cut its only fair considering 40% of taxpayers pay no income tax.
I benefited a great deal from the tax cuts and am by no stretch of the imagination rich.
The people who pay the most benefitted the most from a tax cut? Shocking!
your argument makes no sense. OF course the rich benefit the most by a tax break - they make more money. Right now the rich pay the most in income taxes, and thus, when the rate goes down, they get the biggest break.
It's like 3 people go out to lunch and the bill is $100. the rich man promises to pay for 60% of the bill, the middle class pays for 30% and then the poor pays for 10%. When the store gives a discount of $10, the rich man gets to pay $6 less, the middle only saves $3, and the poorest only gets a benefit of $1.
Then, a la PrettyPanther, the poor and middle class yell "unfair unfair!! the rich guy gets more money!!! WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"
... and then the rich guy stops showing up to lunch, and the middle class gets stuck with 75% of the bill, and the lower class gets 25%...
The rich guy stops showing up at lunch because he has a team of 5 chefs that make him lunch daily as he flies around in his private jet. Besides, that diner didn't serve caviar anyway.
The repubs are not for tax cuts for all. ONLY for the rich. The middle class has to make up for all that money staying at the top. Just google "graph of income disparity from 2000-2008"
It's not too hard to see who Bushco was working for....it will take centuries to undo their damage. Centuries, and you're dam right those who benefitted the most should now have to pay for it, not the ones who went under!
"two ill-conceived and unnecessary wars"
Afghanistan was unnecessary?
The necessity of the war in Afghanistan is debatable. Let's leave it at that.
The way it is being conducted is objectionable! At some point America decided that not killing the enemy was a good thing.
And the likelihood of "success," however defined is even more debatable.
wake up and find the truth propaganda has eaten most of your brain
sad, sorry state of uncontrollable illusions
The Republicans have been shut out of most of the legislation that president Barak Obama has signed into law. Republican amendments in every piece of legislation has been rejected by the Democrat majority. Open and transparent government as promised by Obama apparently is nowhere in sight. Bipartisan surely is not a priority with the Obama administration and this Congress.
Just remember that every time Obama states that the Republicans are holding up legislation, Obama is not being truthful in every aspect. Obama criticizes the Republicans for playing politics and using politics for political positioning for the upcoming elections. The Republican leadership are willing to pass legislation only if the pay-go legislation is being adhered too. The news media frequently reports only a half truth story about the Republicans efforts to stop new spending by increasing the deficits.
It was reported that congress will not present a spending budget for 2011, REALLY. The last time that occurred was in 1974 , wonder what excuses was used then for congress to neglect their duties. The importance to producing a budget in these troubled times to control government spending just shows how open and transparent the Democrat controlled majority Congress and the Obama administration disregards their constitutional duties.
I hate Republicans, don't get me wrong, but I hate Democrats, too.
When Nancy Pelosi announced to the world "we need to pass this bill so that you can find out what is in it", I lost all respect for Democrats. Talk about tyranny.
Obama's trying to play to the idea that the Republicans are holding up the legislative process... even though that's the entire point of the Constitution: if enough people don't like the legislation, they block it. ... that's why the Amendment process is so hard (unfortunately, every just ignores it anyway and then changes the definitions of key phrases through the Judicial branch).
From here it looks like Obama held out the olive branch and the Republicans tried to stick it up his ass. Here's a video of Jim Demint's notorious "It will break him" comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0xrW2KE … r_embedded
Has anyone besides me noticed that the media talking heads are much more freely using words like 'ass' and 'hell' and 'damn' ever since Obama said his now infamous 'ass to kick' comment? Or are they just hitting my ear more noticeably?
And Ralph, that olive branch was pretty forked, trey forked at the least, and it's quite silly to point to one Republican as an example of the entire Republican Congress -- kind of like you shouldn't judge the whole Black Panther party by just one members rant about killing white people and they babies -- or at least so we are told to believe.
No doubt the BP rant is on youtube, but it has made me sick enough hearing the foul words on the news, so I won't look it up and link it for you.
I could have pointed to many more starting with Mitch McConnell and working my way down. The GOP has become the party of NO! as exemplified by the near-unanimous GOP vote against extending unemployment compensation in states with the highest unemployment. In previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, UC extensions during recessions have been passed easily with bi-partisan votes. Today, I just heard that there are only 3 Republican votes in favor of the watered down financial reform bill.
I haven't heard anybody saying don't judge the New Black Panther party just by the incident in Philadelphia. The NBP is a hate group, plain and simple. The argument, as I understand it, is over the Justice Department's decision not to pursue the case further after obtaining a conviction of one of the NBP pickets at the polling station. The NBP is a very small radical splinter group which has little influence in the black community.
The financial reform bill is just like the other tomes of unknowns bills. No doubt financial reform is needed, but voting yet again on something that is absolutely blind except for key pieces? A bill that seeks to control industry and grow government, least of all regulate?
And let us all wait breathless for news of who was bribed to get a Pelosi Passing of this bill. And if this administration was interested in bi-partisan support, someone really ought to tell Pelosi and . . .others. Fact is, they only want support for exactly what they want, how they want it, and they sure don't want anyone to know everything they've shoved in health care, this so-called finreg, or anything else, including the so-called stimulus.
And the leader of the Black Panther Party would beg to differ with you, he has made it quite clear that they are well respected and connected thoughout our government and industry and have thousands of members, it appears to be a practiced line of the 'brother'. He himself is on tape attributing the dropping of the charges against his 'brothers' to having a black AG, or racism - if they had no influence, no mainstream ties, the charges would never have been dropped, or lessened, or become the object of humor and ridicule and hahaha.
So, please don't try to convince me this is a small hate group that doesn't have fingers across this country. I will hope that is true, but I will not ignore the group as insignificant. I might have, if not for the NAACP's latest racist antics that quite reinforce this current climate of ...fear? Yes, fear, it all leaves me fearful, I'm sure that will make some happy.
Here's an objective report on the Philadelphia voting intimidation incident and on the NBPP:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/the- … corn0.html
Get a grip, folks. The New Black Panther Party is a lunatic fringe group that is clearly into racial theater of minor importance ... This case is a one-off. There are plenty of grounds on which to sharply criticize the attorney general—his handling of terrorism questions, just for starters—but this particular overblown attack threatens to undermine the credibility of his conservative critics.
Yeah, Ralph, the 24 year old fuzzy cheeked boy that wrote this 'opinion' piece really had the tools of objectivity and life experience close at hand -- and sadly it's presented as an actual 'news' story.
And turns out the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund actually stepped in on behalf of the Black Panthers; of course, despite bearing the name NAACP in the organizational name, they have Nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the NAACP, "not since 1957" is the NAACP current party line. Yeah, and the NBPP is just a lunatic fringe group.
And to get a bit off topic -- Niger Innis is now my hero, a clear voice and an honest voice, a hopeful for the future of this country voice, an American you want to give a big hug too our of sheer relief and hope. I'll now look for Tea Party gatherings that have him on their speaker list, and hear for myself what he and the others actually have to say at these 'tea parties'. And oh, he was on Fox news tonight. I think the NAACP has created an oxygen starved backdraft.
No they should be boycotted because they are political opportunists who care nothing for the people who pay them! They are NOT earning their pay, so fire them.
They don't get paid to make sure they get re-elected, yet that's all they are interested in doing.
"Vote for me, and I'll set you free! ....Rap on brother rap on."
Sounds about right.
Get them out. Get people in who want to work for a living.
Yeah! Screw the Constitution! Who cares if there isn't any valid argument that the Federal government is allowed to provide Health Care to the populace!!! Those derned republicans think that "following the constitution" (albeit, in only this one case) is a good idea?!?! HA!
Ralph deeds and many others on this forum are arguing that passing legislation is the equivalent to curing social ills.
This is inaccurate.
If legislation = societal bliss, then the third Reich woulda been golden
Since when did any finger pointing from any side at the other, get us anywhere...except into continued immaturity and no sound movement in a helpful direction
until each individual grows up and and can speak without immature ranting, the country is doomed to fail for lack of adults to make sound decisions
there's a lot to be done...on all sides of the issues
'there's a lot to be done...on all sides of the issues'
first is to throw all the bums out and start over, from dog catcher on up.
I think we should get rid of the public employee unions.
One comment say "we do not care for any party who do not care for little people". Hey are we so stupid do we need any party to tell us how to run business? Why we expect somebody else should run our life?
We are not little people. We are example to the world how to do business. We do not need any government to do anything for us or involve any way.
But we do not have any chance, since we left God from our life. We will reap what we seed.
Block all parties. Let us get a tyrannical dictator who can serve for life, handing the monarchy down to future generations. It is much easier to hope for change when the government is able to quell all dissent. Then we can really make things happen....
BOYCOTT ALL REPUBLICANS
LOL That's about all you got in the Democrat arsenal.
Democrat candidates can't say to voters, "Do you like what's happening under President Obama? If so vote for me so we can continue with his programs for change."
60% of Americans DON'T LIKE WHAT OBAMA IS TRYING TO DO.
Every candidate he stumps for loses.
So good luck with boycotting all Republicans.
Democrats are super busy with their noses in the sewer trying to find stuff with which to smirch Republican candidates. With the help of the Democrat Propaganda Arm formerly known as the mainstream media.
Nothing good to run on so they blame Bush and look for dirt. Pathetic really.
That is not even CONNECTED to reality.
AnnCee what is up with your hate?
Woolman60, what are you talking about?
What Democrat candidate is running on Obama's success?
Do you approve of the Barack Obama administration and their accomplishments?
I don't. Why do you call that hate? Because you are a Democrat and you've got nothing else to say? Just as my post opined.
To boycott the GOP all you have to do is vote.
AnnCee, let me say this to you, I don’t care what party you are for, and you need to learn how to talk to other's without your hiding behind your sarcasm. The Republicans have run the country long enough, every nation hates us for what the Republican party stood for under the Republican dictatorship of Bush, you and your radical thoughts of how a President should act and what he should stand for is way out of reach for anyone to understand, I find your hate and your anti- American stance towards our President to be offensive and very hostile. Are you that mad that the President has not failed enough because of your Republican anti – American stance that you find a need to denounce anyone and everyone who believe in our President and our country?
Yes, do a blind, unthinking boycott. Just make a big, emotional, moronic table wipe. Then, all the angelic purity of the Democrats can pour like sweet honey balm upon all the problems of the world because only Democrats have any good ideas.
America without Republicans:
I can't WAIT!!!
The only thing that needs to be Boycotted is IGNORANCE.
Vote for the people who best represent your EDUCATED point of view.
Not a first, but certainly rare ... I agree with Mike!
Problem is...now Beck has a college!
People will call that educated. "Look, I went to Glenn Beck College! I'm really really smart! And I know Democrats are communist terrorists who want to destroy America...I learned it in class!"
The web of propaganda grows ever bigger.
Did ya hear Russssshhhhhhh?
God that guy is a buffoon! "If Obama wasn't black, he'd be a dog-catcher in Chicago". Now I tried to relate this to what I used to say about Junior Bush: "If it wasn't for his daddy, he would be a cheerleader for the Dallas Cowboys."
I've never heard of an elected government bending over backwards to do what the opposition (who lost) wants.
Unfortunately, the current crop of Dems is doing way too much of that, watering down bills hoping to get a few Republican votes. I really wish they would stop that.
Neither have I, did someone say that they should? But they should do what the people want and they are not.
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Boycott all politicians.
Viva La Revolución!!!
Why are they called "political parties"? I thought parties were supposed to be fun!
Another extremely positive thread with extremely viable solution
What would that be, throw peaches instead of tomatoes?
Or boots like they did to Bush. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmaBhHJbbes
it's sooo funny! lolololol
That was funny, I remember it
Dying to see what they will throw at Obama eventually
If Chuck Norris decides to be the President. There would be no reason for elections.
Chuck Norris would just be the President
Personally I think we should vote both Democrats and Republicans out and start all over with fresh new people in our government. Maybe they could run the Country better then everyone who has been sitting around gathering dust.
How about voting for the candidates that do not have the big money behind them ? We keep voting for people on both sides of the aisle who have the money behind them and keep getting the same results , only now the results seem to be getting worse !
I will second that thought Tony it is a grand idea.
Let us vote for you!
Maybe if you started voting by your morals instead of what the party can do for you it would be better.
I agree with you, Diane, it is what Republicans usually do in my experience. We don't look to the government to support us from cradle to grave. That is what Democrats vote for. They are willing to be slaves to big government.
But the GOP turns a blind eye to people who really need help. Both parties are doing all of us a disservice by continuing to poor billions into a military that must rely on expensive outsourcing in order to conduct a war.
Manufactured dependency is not "help," and saying "don't spend so much on the military" is as cheap and easy as griping about the police until some criminal scum has a gun to your head and you decide you need them.
Fact is, we are still spending at the same level as we were at the height of the cold war, and if we weren't so much in the habit of telling others how to live and take care of our own maybe we wouldn't have had to get sucked into a war that has produced nothing but grief for the innocent
Boycott all Democrats!
Or FIRE them.
Whichever gets them to stop trashing the Constitution and our Country.
The activist Republican Supreme Court members are the ones who are trashing the Constitution. They gutted the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education decision and ruled last year that giant corporations are people.
What about unions? since you are a union expert. Unions can do it, but corporations can't? Something is wrong with that picture. Union can be represented but Corporations can't. I think this equalizes the playing field and the dems don't like it.
See, there is a significant difference between corporations and unions. When you join a corporation, you join under the expectation that they will pay you money, and you will give them your labor in exchange, thereby producing something for the corporation (eventually, profit). The corporation then going out and spending money, which you have allowed it to earn, on speech with which you do not agree is essentially the corporation misrepresenting you. Particularly given that there is no expectation of the corporation being a political actor.
When you join a union, on the other hand, part of the stated purpose of the union is to advocate for you and for the other workers who are also members. That that advocacy should extend into the political realm seems obvious and sensical.
The essential difference is this: a union is a group of people joined together for the purpose of advocacy, for the purpose of speech while a corporation is a group of people working together for profit.
And the corporations pay a majority of the taxes. Corporation has a lto of share holders. ..etc. etc.
The supreme court agrees with this. Wake up.
By all means WAKE UP!: The corporations try to buy the Congress and too often succeed.
Lawmakers take contributions every day from corporate executives and lobbyists hoping for their votes. The question of whether that represents business as usual in Washington or an ethics breach is at the heart of a far-reaching Congressional ethics investigation that is stirring concerns throughout Washington and Wall Street.
The Office of Congressional Ethics has sent corporate donors and fund-raising hosts more than three dozen requests for documents involving eight members who solicited and took large contributions from financial institutions even as they were debating the landmark regulatory bill, according to lawyers involved in the inquiry.
The requests are focusing on a series of fund-raisers last December, in the days immediately before the House’s initial adoption of the sweeping overhaul, which could win final approval this week. Some of the fund-raising events took place the same days as crucial votes.
For example, on Dec. 10, one of the lawmakers under investigation, Representative Joseph Crowley, a New York Democrat who sits on the Ways and Means Committee, left the Capitol during the House debate to attend a fund-raising event for him hosted by a lobbyist at her nearby Capitol Hill town house that featured financial firms, along with other donors. After collecting thousands of dollars in checks, Mr. Crowley returned to the floor of the House just in time to vote against a series of amendments that would have imposed tougher restrictions on Wall Street.
Read the entire article here. It'll make you sick.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/us/po … f=politics
this isn't the corporations' fault. Yes, many corporations use government to do their bidding.
But it's the same thing as any child crying in the candy aisle - the parents give in. You dont' blame the child, you blame the parents.
Government needs to quit over stepping it's boundaries - those boundaries are outlined in the Constitution.
Kill the Dems! Kill the GOP! Kill'em all, and let God sort'em out! We'll start a new party, we'll call it the Permanent Party. I want to pass out the JACKBOOTS!
Balderdash! That's a Democrat mantra with no basis in fact.
Republicans give more time and money to charity than Democrats. Google it.
Republican policies strengthen the economy and strengthen opportunities for people to achieve a good life on their own.
Democrat and progressive policies weaken the nation and weaken individuals.
I like your terms.
It's like hogwash. My favorite word.
Says the person who cites sources once in a blue moon and is more likely to offer unfounded platitudes than to argue in a meaningful way... see below.
Yes... and? The relative charitableness of the members of each party has no bearing on the relative merits of their policies. You are giving us a beautiful example of the most overused ad hominem fallacy. Attacking the people proves nothing about their positions.
You say that, but you seem awfully shy of providing any evidence. Please explain to me how denying unemployment benefits strengthens the economy. Talk to most any economist and they will tell you it does the opposite. And that is but one of numerous foolish Republican policies I could have chosen.
Again, you say these things... and then provide no evidence whatsoever, as if we should just take your statements on faith. That is the opposite of the way to argue.
Specifically on this point: how exactly does ensuring health care for all "weaken the nation and weaken individuals"? Or regulating food and drug manufacturers? Or giving out unemployment compensation? Or any of a host of things which are progressive policies implemented in the past hundred years?
We had this for the last 18 months and see the trouble we are in. This would be the stupid idea in the world.
If you want socialism, good luck. But you are an idiot for it.
Sorry Strophios, I don't have the time to educate you. Read some news everyday from a wide variety of sources and you should begin to see a broader picture.
I like to take a look at http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/World+News/North+America/USA in order to read news sources from all over the world.
American media is split down the middle, both right and left obfuscate and exaggerate.
That's funny: I ask you to provide sources and examples, so you tell me to just read the news. If things are clear and obvious enough that all I have to do is "read some news everyday" then it should be no trouble at all for you to provide me with some specific examples, instead of evading the question.
Incidentally, that's not how sources work anyways. When I ask that you cite sources (or similar), you don't just give me a source, you give a citation, i.e. you give me a source and tell me where it is that the source supports your point. So, just giving me a news aggregator and saying "find it yourself," only proves that you have no examples.
Have you tried Google? Seems to work pretty well, give it a try.
Telling me to find it myself is only proof that you yourself have no support for your ideas. See, if I say "Liberals are always right. Don't believe me? Then google it!" that does nothing to prove my claim. Now, on the other had, if I claim "The US won 36 gold medals in the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Don't believe me? Look here: http://en.beijing2008.cn/# (the official site of the Beijing Olympic Games, with the medal standings listed on the first page, about halfway down)." you're more or less obligated to believe me. Either that or abdicate reality.
I am not obligated to believe you or even look at the source provided. If I want to know if something said is true I Google it.
You could do the same.
I could, or I could hold myself and you to higher standards of argument. You know, the kind which real people engage in, where the point is to discover the truth, not just throw unsupported statements back and forth.
You are indeed obligated, at least if you want to participate in reasonable, sensical debate and argument. You are of course free to question the legitimacy of my source, but that is an entirely different thing from ignoring it and/or failing to provide your own sources.
And by the by, it is the person making the claim who must provide the evidence, not the other way around. I mean, I suppose that you could argue by different standards. You could go right ahead and be a sophist, attempting to argue around the truth rather than by way of it. It is a common thing to do these days (see political punditry).
Hold yourself to a higher standard and don't insult people and maybe they would care to engage you in debate.
I leveled no insult. An insult would be "You're an idiot,"or "you're arguing like a sophist, so you're an idiot." All I did was make an objective statement of fact.
You were insulting the other day, you apologized for it.
So the fact that I insulted you the other day and subsequently apologized for it is relevant how? I'm speaking of this particular case. Even if we wish to generalize to include that instance as well, then all we see is me (arguably) insulting you, apologizing so that you would (for once) deal with the actual argument, and you proceeding to ignore my argument anyways.
Its not your argument I plan on ignoring its you.
Why, exactly? As I pointed out, I did not insult you earlier, I merely made an objective evaluation of your style of argument.
Additionally, you are aware that discounting an argument based simply on who is making it, although entertaining and a great way to condescend, is also the crowning example of the ad hominem fallacy. Arguments must be evaluated on their own merits, not the merits of those making them.*
*This is part of the grounding idea behind democracy itself, that everyone's voice can have value.
Sorry Strophios, seriously no time. Jim Hunter is right. Google works very well. But I like that UK news site because it updates constantly with breaking news from sources all over the world. Then you just follow your interests and start reading. I'm obviously interested in keeping an eye on the Barack Obama thugministration. Dangerous times.
Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana is a good man and should not be boycotted.
I like Darryl Issa from California.
At least he sticks to his guns.
And he made a good tag team with Kucinich when they went after TARP. Wooooo, that was fun to watch!!
In my personal and considered opinion, both major parties are full of S@#t. Neither one has the best interest of the country or its peoples as a priority. It really appears to be time for the independents to claim not only Washington but every portion of government from local school boards all the way up.
How does this strike you Republicans and Tea Partiers?
Group files to put Tea Party on Michigan ballot
By Dawson Bell
Free Press Lansing Bureau
LANSING – An elusive group based outside Saginaw that calls itself the Tea Party submitted 59,400 petition signatures to Michigan election officials this afternoon, the first step in a process that could result in a slate of Tea Party candidates on the state ballot in November.
http://www.freep.com/article/20100714/N … ch.-ballot
The GOP in Michigan has been coseying up to the Tea Party but may have "jumped a shark."
What are you afraid of?
Yay for financial reform!
Yay for Consumer Protection!!
FINALLY, the gvt is doing what it's supposed to do!
Protecting the people from powerful forces of greed. Minnesota Repub wants minimum wage to be $2.13 an hour!!!!
Thank God for Dems and Obama. God help us if Repubs and/or tea-bags get in!
where does the constitution state that the role of the US government is to protect people from "greed"?
That's nonsense. The constitution was actually a power-grab by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists (Hamilton was known for wanting George Washington to be the Monarch of the new government) to solidify power for the founding fathers (basically). But the language in the 10th amendment makes CLEAR that the constitution puts ONLY limits on the federal government.
Well, the forces of greed have been RUNNING the federal gvt, so there you go!!
BTW, I would like to hear any rationale for the minimum wage being $2.13 an hour...is this a joke?
And, if the 14th amendment protects my privacy, why are so many people trying to over-ride it?
Sorry, but boycotting the Republicans just makes them more the "victim" and they are in no way the victims they try to paint themselves to be.
I say instead that Democrats and Independents head to the polls in droves on election day and make their votes count.DON'T STAY HOME ON ELECTION DAY.
by Charles James4 years ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come...
by mio cid4 years ago
Is there any chance at all of a brokered convention?Can a new candidate jump in now, this late in the race?Will any of these events if they were to occur spell defeat for the Republican party?Is a debacle brewing in the...
by Scott Bateman6 months ago
George Will, one of my favorite conservative columnists, is leaving the Republican Party because of Trump. Your thoughts on his decision?http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/ … index.html
by PrettyPanther5 years ago
Fox News' Bret Baier asked all eight Republican candidates:"I'm going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10-to-1, as Byron said, spending cuts to tax...
by mel227 years ago
Who will be the most viable candidates to run against the Dems next term?Romney?Pawlenty?Jindal?None of the Above? Palin?Other?Your thoughts on ONE that seems most viable as of now!
by rhamson16 months ago
Having watched two of the GOP Presidential debates first hosted by Fox and then one hosted by CNN it sickens me the way they both decided to format the questions and answers. These are not debates as none of the time is...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.