I would like to turn a corner on this discussion - that's why I'm not quoting any previous posts. If any of the mods think this is too far off topic and wish to use it to start a new one, that's okay, too.

It seems like we're dealing with competing strategies here. (Some might argue competing strategies AND competing visions, but I'll be generous and say for now that Rove and Lee actually want the same thing.)

Let's say for a moment that we could wave a magic wand and have complete and utter GOP unity. We're united in such a way that even the democrats are amazed at our unity. And we're unified under the Rove plan (i.e. don't oppose Zero care head on; let it die on the vine)

Here's are the facts. Our Federal government is about to implode under the weight of entitlements. Social Security. Medicare. And now Obamacare.

The republicans may have initially opposed Social Security, but it's still with us. Bigger and more bloated than ever.

The republicans may have opposed Medicare. But it (like SS) is still with us.

Now Rove (and the majority of the GOPe like McClown and his puppet Lady Lindsey) is seemingly (correct me where I'm wrong) proposing the same strategy.

Can someone help me out. Why is this a GOOD strategy?

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #17

---

I've heard that argument, and I don't discount it.

But who exactly are you saying are the ones prone to "shooting in the foot?"

Would it be Rove and Co who - when they didn't "get their way" with having their establishment candidate get the Senate nomination in Delaware, did all they could to undermine O'donnell? Ditto Nevada. Ditto Missouri. Ditto Indiana.

Would it be Romney and Co. who effectively (some might say visciously) attacked his primary opponents - but in the general election turned to mush when facing a true enemy of conservatism and the Constitution?

You can even go back years and years to see this is not new, but an established pattern. In '64, the establishment of the day (the Rockefellers and the Scrantons) did more to undermine Goldwater than LBJ could have thought of.

You're right that the democrats NEVER lose sight of their goal, which is to win elections at all costs (and to hell with the country) That's why they circled the wagons around BJ Bill and Zero. And still, to this day, there's been no tell all book about his corrupt administration.

In the 8 short years that Reagan was on the scene, he showed how it's done - when you not only have an hostile opposition party, but a hostile media. You BELIEVE. You HAVE PRINCIPLES you'll DIE FOR. And, if you can communicate them well enough, you WILL be able to 'go around" the media and appeal DIRECTLY to the people.

But of course, after Reagan, we had to return to "normalcy"* with the Bushes and the Doles and the Roves and the Romneys.

Let me ask you - what EXACTLY have they fought for, and what EXACTLY have we "won?"

*"Normalcy" defined as "let's compromise". We'll do it the democrat's and media's way.

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #45

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #44

---

Zitat

---

wo party system, with the conservative right now being dealt a huge blow because the president is a liberal black...period. Oh, and liberals suck.

I know that sounds like a cop out, but that's where we are. The chance to move in another direction was sat out by too many . Therefore the conclusion has to be the majority of the nation wants what we've got, at the moment. Being in the minority doesn't tear at me like it does so many. We'll win the next one, if played right. Liberals are team players, to tread lightly is the way to go at the moment. As a group they will cut off their noses to spite their face.

Offering something different is needed, but doing so with finesse is where you win. Rove isn't always right, or always wrong. I have no idea why Levin and Rove (among others) are so good at pushing peoples buttons. But unfortunately we have to work around some losers who need to be primaried. We can only work with what we've got.

Lees idea isn't embraced by enough of them. Time to get off that horse and tweak it. Small victories are preferable to huge loses.

---

Congratulations on presenting your viewpoint in a more understandable way than Rove.

I may not agree with it 100 percent, but you do present a strategy.

And when you take away the personalities and other superfluous garbage, our views may not be that far apart.

---

Sniff ...you don't like me?

---

Oh no, I like you just fine.

The personalities I meant were Rove, Lee, Levin, etc.

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #48

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #43

---

Cedric proves he's lost the argument every time he comes back with insults (fringe, kook, etc.) instead of answering the questions.

---

Cedric The Great carried this discussion and admonished RTF (he of the childish poems) to stay on topic.

This thread, indeed, this entire MB would be lost without his eminence, Cedric The Great.

Speaking of insults, here are some hurled at me: dipsh*t, a-hole, a**hole, low-life-sh*t eater, enemy of the republic, traitor, boot-licker, lackey...(yeah, I got some catchin' up to do).

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #52

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #51

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #48

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #43

---

Cedric proves he's lost the argument every time he comes back with insults (fringe, kook, etc.) instead of answering the questions.

---

Cedric The Great carried this discussion and admonished RTF (he of the childish poems) to stay on topic.

This thread, indeed, this entire MB would be lost without his eminence, Cedric The Great.

Speaking of insults, here are some hurled at me: dipsh*t, a-hole, a**hole, low-life-sh*t eater, enemy of the republic, traitor, boot-licker, lackey...(yeah, I got some catchin' up to do).

---

I can see Rufus staying more on topic than you are. I've noticed far more changing the topic (another fallacy) coming from you rather than Rufus, his latest post moved the thread back on topic while you posted another attack post.

Referring to yourself as Cedric the Great, yourself as 'his eminence' etc. etc. is not only prideful, but is a fallacious argument as well - Argument from Authority: the claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted.

Referring back to insults you've received (usually as a result of you being the first person to post the insult I've noticed over time) is yet another fallacy - Two wrongs make a right: a charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationalization that others have sinned, or might have sinned. Therefore "I got some catchin' up to do" etc.

You never seem to answer any questions, just posting one fallacious argument after another.

People do this who have no answers and no solutions to problems. But thanks for playing.

---

Between posts number 2 and 13, I stated who won the debate and why.

Rufus started with the snarky ad hominems directed toward me (#14), as is always the case when the superiority of my logic and eloquence becomes apparent.

You people are going to have to learn that initiating uncalled for attacks against Cedric The Great will only result in your eventual humiliation.

Please heed this, my final warning: Do not duel with the master!

---

Now.....to get this thread back on topic.....how about we answer Rufus' question:

Zitat

---

Here's are the facts. Our Federal government is about to implode under the weight of entitlements. Social Security. Medicare. And now Obamacare.

The republicans may have initially opposed Social Security, but it's still with us. Bigger and more bloated than ever.

The republicans may have opposed Medicare. But it (like SS) is still with us.

Now Rove (and the majority of the GOPe like McClown and his puppet Lady Lindsey) is seemingly (correct me where I'm wrong) proposing the same strategy.

Can someone help me out. Why is this a GOOD strategy?

---

I happen to think its a good question. How is proposing the same stuff that has been a proven failure in the past a GOOD strategy?

Cedric? (Answers this time, not fallacious arguments or insults).

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #51

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #48

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #43

---

Cedric proves he's lost the argument every time he comes back with insults (fringe, kook, etc.) instead of answering the questions.

---

Cedric The Great carried this discussion and admonished RTF (he of the childish poems) to stay on topic.

This thread, indeed, this entire MB would be lost without his eminence, Cedric The Great.

Speaking of insults, here are some hurled at me: dipsh*t, a-hole, a**hole, low-life-sh*t eater, enemy of the republic, traitor, boot-licker, lackey...(yeah, I got some catchin' up to do).

---

I can see Rufus staying more on topic than you are. I've noticed far more changing the topic (another fallacy) coming from you rather than Rufus, his latest post moved the thread back on topic while you posted another attack post.

Referring to yourself as Cedric the Great, yourself as 'his eminence' etc. etc. is not only prideful, but is a fallacious argument as well - Argument from Authority: the claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted.

Referring back to insults you've received (usually as a result of you being the first person to post the insult I've noticed over time) is yet another fallacy - Two wrongs make a right: a charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationalization that others have sinned, or might have sinned. Therefore "I got some catchin' up to do" etc.

You never seem to answer any questions, just posting one fallacious argument after another.

People do this who have no answers and no solutions to problems. But thanks for playing.

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #57

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #56

---

In classic jötunn manner, it stalks, sows discension, posts inflammatory, ridiculing, false, extraneous, or off-topic messages. Instead of facts it resorts to Alinsky as its source of debating techniques.

---

Ummmm......

Here's the topic: Mike Lee Debates Defunding Obamacare With Karl Rove

Here's my first comment: Rove Won.

---

Quote: conservgramma wrote in post #58

---

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #57

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #56

---

In classic jötunn manner, it stalks, sows discension, posts inflammatory, ridiculing, false, extraneous, or off-topic messages. Instead of facts it resorts to Alinsky as its source of debating techniques.

---

Ummmm......

Here's the topic: Mike Lee Debates Defunding Obamacare With Karl Rove

Here's my first comment: Rove Won.

---

That still doesn't answer the question that was posed in a later post.

If Rove won...............

How is it a GOOD strategy to repeat the same problems (vis a vis Obamacare) that have proven to be failures to our economy? (i.e, Social Security, Medicare, Entitlements)

I would really like an adult, reasoned well thought-out response to that question. Its a good one.

---