Yeah, the Republican Party is dead, down & out, consigned to the trash bin of history

[torchthebitch]

In 1997 the British Conservative party was written off as a footnote in history. They have spent twelve years trying to get their act together, and are now viewed as the party of change. The Labour Party is now the one that is viewed as a spent force, shortly to be condemned to years in the wilderness.

Personally I don't think the Conservatives are the gilded prospect they are portrayed, nor do I think the Labour Party are certain to spend as long in opposition as predicted.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I didn't.

But it stands to reason, if a Republican wins, where he's never won before, that somehow, the Democratic brand has been tarnished. Maybe it's them spending like a drunken Bush with zero result. You are narrowly focusing on the minority of the results in order to tarnish all the results. We have two Governor's races about to be decided in off-year elections and the Democrats are losing. Why is that U_D? I mean if the Republicans have so badly destroyed themselves politically because of x, y, z, then does it not stand to reason that people would still be anxious and eager to vote Democrat?

Was the only reason they were passionate to vote for Obama possibly the historical nature of his candidacy and an eagerness to prove we weren't a racist nation despite the possible bad outcomes of electing a guy who PROMISED to wreck the economy in the name of Fraternity?

Maybe this IS all meaningless, who is to tell? but in the face of what happened in the last national election, it stands against the tide, and if that tide were still rising, then it would not be possible. If those two districts you are focusing on were in love with what the Democrats have done since the election, you're right, those guys could only have done "a little better," but they won. In ALL the races. Instead it looks as if the tide were ebbing. Off year elections are often brutal for the party in power; this is a political truism.

If I were a Democrat, I would be concerned and start thinking about what the Far Left was doing to my Party's image. Thank Gawd, I'm no longer a Democrat! The Party no longer shares my values, especially when they start quoting Chairman Mao!

YIKES!!!

Good one torch.

Furthermore U_D, I'd learn to be more respectful of people when discussing lest you prove them right about the meanness of the Left...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

What point?

Your point that the Democrat losses are meaningless because in two races Republicans had never run a marathon before?

Okay, you win, the Republican Party is down and out, unable to win elections, so I should shut up, so I will because you cannot win with the insane.

My point is that there can be no comparison when you have one set of data. You're ascribing positions again. I didn't say that they were meaningless losses, nor that the Republicans would never win another election. But that the data presented is meaningless for use as a trend as the "Thinker" is trying to do.

You start with a race in which the GOP fielded no candidate and lost, as would be expected. (no data)

You take the results of a race that the GOP did run a candidate and won. (data)

They simply can't be compared to establish any sort of meaningful, legitimate, result. So heralding the wins by the GOP in 2 of the 10 instances cited as evidence that the GOP may be making a comeback nationally is not just disingenuous, it's bad math.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

There are cycles of war, politics, and economics. Rookies haven't lived long enough to understand this.

More ageist crap from Vetteman..

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Good one torch.

Furthermore U_D, I'd learn to be more respectful of people when discussing lest you prove them right about the meanness of the Left...

You reap what you sow Cap'n Hypocrite.
Remind me.. Who was it making fat jokes, deflecting, and calling others idiot, moron, et al?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You think it's crap? Your problem is simple, book learning is no substitute for experience.

Yes, as a general rule, it's crap. As are your near constant assertions that age somehow magically imparts wisdom despite all evidence to the contrary.

I've found that those who tend to try to denigrate higher learning in favor of experience as a better teacher are those who have had very little of the former and an abundance of the latter. In reality equal measures of both are best. there are some things that simply should not be learned through the school of "hard knocks".. nuclear physics or ballistics for example.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

That's your MO UD, I suspect you've used the word "moron" more then most.

It's not my fault if that's the best scientific descriptor of your mental condition.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You think it's crap? Your problem is simple, book learning is no substitute for experience.

Shorter Vetteman: Education....BAD!

(This mindset goes a long way towards explaining why his three boys are such chronic underachievers....)

 

[RobDownSouth]

More ageist crap from Vetteman..

He likes to equate "age" with "wisdom", doesn't he.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I know it boosts your ego, but the hypocrisy kills your credibility. At least you had the integrity not to offer a denial. I can handle whatever you offer up, I ask no quarter, nor do I expect it. So bring it.

The hypocrisy you're speaking of would be the Cap'n complaining about "Alinsky" methods of insult and deflection being used while engaging in those exact tactics by implying that I was high, a loon, a child, and insane all in less than half an hour all the while refusing to address the point I was making.

You're not hypocritical in your use of personal insults. Sophomoric as they are.. but you don't complain about having them served right back at you.

But the Cap'n definitely is, you'll notice that I used his very own well used "Alinsky" admonition against him in response to the multiple personal insults he posted. I did so for the express reason of pointing out his hypocritical nature.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I think their celebratory antics were premature and based upon the idea that Obama is not a Marxist Chicago Thug Politician being aided and abetted by that hollowed-eyed hippee refugee from the radical Berkeley 70's and that dupe Harry Reid, who has probably gone quietly insane and everyone is pretending not to notice 'cept for his true constituency...

He was their anti-Bush; a uniting centrist who would heal our racial tensions.

Yeah, right. He's yelling for more coal for the fire!

You've gone clown. And, worse, you've gone boring. Iggy.

 

[rosco rathbone]

You've gone clown. And, worse, you've gone boring. Iggy.

I thought "celebratory antics" was kinda funny. I like the word "antics".

 

[JohnGalt2009]

My point is that there can be no comparison when you have one set of data. You're ascribing positions again. I didn't say that they were meaningless losses, nor that the Republicans would never win another election. But that the data presented is meaningless for use as a trend as the "Thinker" is trying to do.

You start with a race in which the GOP fielded no candidate and lost, as would be expected. (no data)

You take the results of a race that the GOP did run a candidate and won. (data)

They simply can't be compared to establish any sort of meaningful, legitimate, result. So heralding the wins by the GOP in 2 of the 10 instances cited as evidence that the GOP may be making a comeback nationally is not just disingenuous, it's bad math.

What you are doing here seems to be happening a lot in many places. There are many on the so called "left" that are attempting to change the perspective of an issue, and then framing the discussion in a manner that fits the perspective that they want to see.

The movement that is going on here is that many on the left have bought into the mantra that republicans and the republican party is no more. Fine, fair enough, if that is the perspective that one would like to take great. Conservatives at the same time can also take the perspective that liberals have gone off the deep end and are committed to a full court press for socialism.

The issue here, simplistically speaking is that there is no small amount of surprise that historically democratic seats are starting to swing the other way. By simply saying that since it is the first time a repub won a dem seat, therefor there is no data is a non starter, it is flat out silly. Trends start somewhere, and in this case, it is happening a lot, all over the country.

The argument over "higher education" over "experience" is fairly silly as well. The reason for an education is so that you can go out and apply the knowledge. Having a higher level of knowledge simply for the sake of having it, is like having a race car and not putting on the track. Or training to be a soldier yet never stepping on to the field of battle. Or one more , earning a higher level degree in martial arts training, yet never stepping on the mats to fight, or never practicing against a fully resisting opponent. That said, the learning process is simply the starting point.

On the flip side, years of experience can be collected, then taken and refined by an educational framework.

I agree in that a balanced approach is best, I've followed that path myself. Military two weeks out of high school, served as an Infantryman in a combat zone. Started working on my college degree while still on active duty. Got out, got into law enforcement, got a real view of "people". Got involved in military contracting, saw more of the world, and the "outcomes" created by politicians than most will ever see. Finished my undergrad, became a corporate hack, finished my grad degree, started my own software company.

Learned that I will never higher someone without experience. I especially learned that I will never higher someone who's only experience is so called "higher education". Education without experience means one has just started. Education for the sake of getting education is non-contextual. Theories are ideas that haven't been tempered by experience and trial.

I'd rather hire a guy that built an ivory tower, as opposed to the person who's only occupied it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yeah, the Republican Party is dead, down & out, consigned to the trash bin of history

No, dumbass, the conservative movement, not the Republican Party, is consigned to the trash bin, etc. The modern American conservative movement only dates the 1964 Goldwater campaign. The Republican Party is much older and will be around much longer, and might even take back the WH -- after it purges its movement conservatives.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I higher people that are shorter than me.

 

[JohnGalt2009]

No, dumbass, the conservative movement, not the Republican Party, is consigned to the trash bin, etc. The modern American conservative movement only dates the 1964 Goldwater campaign. The Republican Party is much older and will be around much longer, and might even take back the WH -- after it purges its movement conservatives.

That distinction is only because of a change in terminology. Prior to that, we would see the "modern conservative movement" as being labeled "classical liberalism". Back in the day, "liberalism" was about Federalism, less government, less taxation, individual rights and liberty, etc.

This so called "new" conservative movement that many choose to malign with silly name calling is simply a revival of people that want less government, less taxation, freedom and individual liberty.

I may disagree with what someone says, but I'd fight for that person to be able to say it.

 

[The_Trouvere]

No, dumbass, the conservative movement, not the Republican Party, is consigned to the trash bin, etc. The modern American conservative movement only dates the 1964 Goldwater campaign. The Republican Party is much older and will be around much longer, and might even take back the WH -- after it purges its movement conservatives.

The "modern American conservative movement" was actually reactionary, because it wanted to repeal the reforms of the New Deal. It never succeeded, because these reforms have broad, popular support.

What Barry Goldwater represented ought to have died when he was defeated in a landslide by Lyndon Johnson. Unfortunately, the black ghetto riots that happened from 1964 to 1968 turned the United States into a Republican country.

 

[JohnnySavage]

The "modern American conservative movement" was actually reactionary, because it wanted to repeal the reforms of the New Deal. It never succeeded, because these reforms have broad, popular support.

What Barry Goldwater represented ought to have died when he was defeated in a landslide by Lyndon Johnson. Unfortunately, the black ghetto riots that happened from 1964 to 1968 turned the United States into a Republican country.

Probably from your perch in the library, all large cities look like black ghettos.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That distinction is only because of a change in terminology. Prior to that, we would see the "modern conservative movement" as being labeled "classical liberalism". Back in the day, "liberalism" was about Federalism, less government, less taxation, individual rights and liberty, etc.

This so called "new" conservative movement that many choose to malign with silly name calling is simply a revival of people that want less government, less taxation, freedom and individual liberty.

I may disagree with what someone says, but I'd fight for that person to be able to say it.

The Libertarian Party actually represents what you are describing far more consistently than has the post-Goldwater conservative movement.

But the Libertarian Party will not be a significant political force, nor will there be a libertarian revival under any party's banner, in your lifetime or mine.