Horowitz: Republicans won’t even fight for self-defense

[roamer_1]

You said that 4 years ago.

And look where we are today.

All you and your party does is cede ground year after year. That isn't winning.

You are a slave to your fear.

Until the party is forced to reform and conform to the constitution the ground ceding will continue.

Losing is losing no matter what perfume you put on it.

To continue doing what has been failing for decades is a fool's errand.

They are not ceding ground. They are complicit. They just think they can do it better.

[Mesaclone]

That's right. But what that translates into in real-time is a null result. Neither side qualifies according to the criteria, so I really don't give a crap who wins. Purity test...as usual.Both are driving America into the ground like a tent peg. Idiotic moral equivalency argument...akin to comparing a spring breeze to a level 5 hurricane. Both are hyping fear of the other as the only real agenda. Another childish attempt an idiotic moral equivalency argument.It's a sh*t-show all the way around. So why should I give my blood-won endorsement to either of em?The answer would be, because you have the wisdom and maturity to discern the MOUNTAINS of difference between the policies of the Trump Administration and the Marxism of a coming Biden one....but as usual, you lack the ability to discern the differences in political ideologies...there is only pure and impure to you...and all that is not you is impure.

That's a very high horse you ride.

[roamer_1]

Enjoy your Worker's party.
None for me, thanks.

[Mesaclone]

Enjoy your Worker's party.
None for me, thanks.

Two points:

One. Its the "workers party" that I and my President and 10's of millions of conservatives are fighting...whilst you sit on your hands and DO NOTHING.

Two. AS I noted in the long post upthread...I know just what it is you want and support. None for me on that either, thanks.

[XenaLee]

Holy crappola.... still at it, I see.

Nah.   Not in the mood today.

Have fun.

[roamer_1]

Two points:

One. Its the "workers party" that I and my President and 10's of millions of conservatives are fighting...whilst you sit on your hands and DO NOTHING.

Not helping you destroy the nation is not the same thing as 'doing nothing'.

Two. AS I noted in the long post upthread...I know just what it is you want and support. None for me on that either, thanks.

Right. Suits me fine.

[Mesaclone]

Your progressivism is no different than theirs.

Seriously, you need to actually pick up a book or two and do some reading. You really do not understand anything about political ideology...you just don't. Its hard to argue policy and ideology with someone like yourself, who doesn't really know what they are. For example, I'm not progressive on a single point ideological issue...though I'll happily admit to Libertarian leanings on a few issues...and yet the best you can do is to say "you're a progressive".

Only someone dishonest...or utterly ill informed...could make such a claim. Which are you?

[corbe]

Holy crappola.... still at it, I see.

Nah.   Not in the mood today.

Have fun.

   I missed it last night @XenaLee so I'm playing catch up. 

[roamer_1]

Seriously, you need to actually pick up a book or two and do some reading. You really do not understand anything about political ideology...you just don't. Its hard to argue policy and ideology with someone like yourself, who doesn't really know what they are. For example, I'm not progressive on a single point ideological issue...and yet the best you can do is to say "you're a progressive".

Only someone dishonest...or utterly ill informed...could make such a claim. Which are you?

It isn't dishonest or ill informed... I just know a Hegelian Dialectic when I see it.

[corbe]

[Mesaclone]

It isn't dishonest or ill informed... I just know a Hegelian Dialectic when I see it.

Then why don't you apply it when reaching conclusions? You seem to lose the last step of using rationalism to attain a coherent synthesis of thought....which of course, can be the result of dishonesty or ignorance. So again, I'd ask, which applies?

[DCPatriot]

Then why don't you apply it when reaching conclusions? You seem to lose the last step of using rationalism to attain a coherent synthesis of thought....which of course, can be the result of dishonesty or ignorance. So again, I'd ask, which applies?

I'll take "dishonesty" for $1,000, Alex! 

[DB]

They are not ceding ground. They are complicit. They just think they can do it better.

The voters are ceding ground taking the crumbs they can get while the party continues growing big government.

I said a long time ago that Trump is just a different flavor of big government. His big government priorities are just different - in some places - than the opposition's.

And if people don't believe that just look at Obamacare. It was Trump demanding coverage of preexisting conditions which negates the very definition of insurance. It is just another government mandated entitlement. It was also Trump that said he was going to provide insurance to the 25% who couldn't afford it and that government was going to pay for it. Government doesn't pay for anything.

Trump's administration has signed off on as much deficit spending in four years as Obama did in two terms.

And that's "winning"...

[roamer_1]

Then why don't you apply it when reaching conclusions? You seem to lose the last step of using rationalism to attain a coherent synthesis of thought....which of course, can be the result of dishonesty or ignorance. So again, I'd ask, which applies?

Which side of the Hegelian Dialectic to support? Why neither, of course. There's nothing there but froth and chaos.

[roamer_1]

The voters are ceding ground taking the crumbs they can get while the party continues growing big government.

I said a long time ago that Trump is just a different flavor of big government. His big government priorities are just different - in some places - than the opposition's.

And if people don't believe that just look at Obamacare. It was Trump demanding coverage of preexisting conditions which negates the very definition of insurance. It is just another government mandated entitlement. It was also Trump that said he was going to provide insurance to the 25% who couldn't afford it and that government was going to pay for it. Government doesn't pay for anything.

Trump's administration has signed off on as much deficit spending in four years as Obama did in two terms.

And that's "winning"...

And that, in the end, is the proof in the pudding. No matter what is being said, no matter how much whining and crying and throwing dirt in the air, the beast keeps getting fed. That's the tell.

[DB]

Then why don't you apply it when reaching conclusions? You seem to lose the last step of using rationalism to attain a coherent synthesis of thought....which of course, can be the result of dishonesty or ignorance. So again, I'd ask, which applies?

Funny that you are telling people that work in highly technical fields how to successfully apply logic.

And your conclusion is either they are lying or stupid because they don't subscribe to your rationalizations.

The irony is a bit much.

[Mod2]

roamer_1 is not the topic of this thread. Nor are other TBR members. Stop the personal ####!

@mystery-ak @Cyber Liberty