Obviously his family name recognition is helping him along, but what are his chances of winning?
Does he have any original thoughts in his head, or does he parrot the same conservative mantras as every other con? I’m guessing he’s just as vapid as his parents and that he’s using the Tea Party momentum because he’s an opportunist, but I only know what I read in this AP story.
:rolleyes:
Absurd.
But I don’t remember your rolling eyes when people claimed George W. Bush was the worst president in history, and that is also an absurd claim.
He pretends to be a family man.
He is trying to use his name to get a seat in congress. Dan Quayle only showed up at the Senate to use the gym, so Ben figures it will be easy to parrot the party line and be another empty suit.
In the history of history? Probably not.
In the history of the United States? Well…
We’d probably derail this thread.
You prolly just don’t remember because you’re old; I heard that happens to people sometimes. Lawyers too.
Anyway, to return to talking about Ben Quayle: is there any way to prove the Brock Landers columns were written by him? Like, maybe he got paid for it?
It’s one hell of a sight closer of a claim, and at least arguable. Your “Dems do it too” response is, in this case, inappropriate. You may try again if you like. Maybe with Reagan?
Would you disagree that Bush is the worst President in modern history?
Yes.
But I wouldn’t sneer at someone who advanced the claim; even though I wouldn’t share that ranking, I can see a good faith argument for the proposition.
RNATB and Bricker, please take your debate about GWB someplace else.
This thread is about Ben Quayle’s candidacy. Stop trying to threadrape.
That photo with the kids is definitely sleazy, and if word gets out and it’s handled right, could alone be enough to sink his campaign. He’s still in a fairly large primary field, right? That leaves plenty of folks who can call him on it.
But the Democrats do it too!!
This thread has been Bricked by the Bricker.
Congratulations on your promotion to moderator.
So is your thread about Quayle, specifcally, or is there any part of it that suggests that it’s absurd to call Barack Obama the worst president in history, no matter who’s doing the calling?
Congratulations on your promotion to threadraper.
What is the thread title?
What questions did I ask in the OP?
What question did I ask in my next post?
Why don’t you try answering a question, instead of threadraping?
" Arizona Representative race feat. Ben Quayle."
And let me help you by fleshing out a couple of arguments that readers might find in your questions, and refuting them:
Since the title of the thread is " Arizona Representative race feat. Ben Quayle," it’s inappropriate to mention anything or anyone else. Rejoinder: not really, especially since (a) threads evolve all the time, and (b) this particular thread invites the reader to conclude that Quayle’s ludicrous claim about Obama is ludicrous per se, as opposed to simply objectionable because it’s Quayle making it.
“What are his chances of winning?”
-and-
“Does he have any original thoughts in his head, or does he parrot the same conservative mantras as every other con?”
Since I asked only those questions in my OP, all responses should be limited to answering those questions.
Rejoinder: not really, especially since (a) threads evolve all the time, and (b) this particular thread invites the reader to conclude that Quayle’s ludicrous claim about Obama is ludicrous per se, as opposed to simply objectionable because it’s Quayle making it.
"Is there any way to prove the Brock Landers columns were written by him? Like, maybe he got paid for it? "
I, as the OP, am entitled to ask further questions, which are automatically legitimate. No one else is, unless those questions support my argument.
Rejoinder: well, you know by now.
Because, as much as you would love this to be an echo chamber, where reponses uncritically support your central thesis, that’s not going to happen.
Frank and others mistake my post for a “Democrats do it too.” And of course that’s not accurate. My point is not that Democrats do it too, but that when these Democrats do it, your reaction is not remotely negative. That is, your OP invites us to believe that there’s something inherently wrong, stupid, foolish, about calling Barack Obama the worst president in history. And it is – I agree.
But the OP also invites us to conclude that the condemnation arises solely from the error – that is, as a neutrally-minded arbiter of historical fact, he’d be equally outraged at ANY such misstatement of fact.
And that is manifestly untrue, and deserves exposure.
Quite frankly, you used the example of Quayle calling Obama the worst President ever as support for “Does he have any original thoughts in his head, or does he parrot the same conservative mantras as every other con? I’m guessing he’s just as vapid as his parents and that he’s using the Tea Party momentum because he’s an opportunist, …”, and then you followed his quote with a rolleyes.
The question “… what are his chances of winning?” is a well that you poisoned all by your lonesome.
Your post compared the statement to a (hypothetical) similar statement about George W. Bush, and thus invites us to believe that there is something inherently wrong, stupid, foolish, about calling Bush the Younger the worst president in history, as if those statements were equal. There is not, and they are not.
And, at this point, I am most definitely veering into what should be a different thread, and will rein myself in.
Not really. There’s a factual answer to that question in the form of current polls, and there’s people’s opinions on the race who might have local coverage of events and/or be better informed than I am. This article is the first I’ve heard of him, so obviously there’s a lot I don’t know.
If someone want’s to counter my example with some non-vapid non-demagoguery, feel free, but so far all I’ve seen from him are conservative platitude’s and the ridiculous opinion offered in his ad.
Quayle and I were only babies when he was in office, but doesn’t pretty much everyone, even people who voted for him, agree that Jimmy Carter was a worse president?
<deleted>
dammit i missed the edit window
was gonna say:
His website blames our economic woes on the Democrats, and then offers up Tea Party/Republican friendly platforms.
Like I said, nothing new here.
Notice “death tax”. Notice that cutting taxes is all he’s about. Notice he wants to undercut voluntary trade associations in the workplace. Notice the vague and stupidly unrealistic point #8.