Is the Republican Party dying?
Yes
47.1% (65)
47.1% (65)
No
52.9% (73)
52.9% (73)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is the Republican Party "Dying"? Will it "Die" Sometime In The Near Future?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

You know, this is not even worth arguing anymore. You refuse to listen to any reason or read what I actually say so I'm gone. This is a waste of my time.

farson135:

Tyler Perry:
That one's kinda weak. Again, that's analysis. I'm referring to actual facts and figures. Numbers. Verifiable data.

It is facts. They say that this politician signed an affirmation from a particular group and he didn't.

That's not what I got out of it. It seemed to me the complaint was that this "affirmation" was a pledge to Grover Norquist, and they said it wasn't. That's analysis. The politician DID sign the "affirmation" in question.

farson135:

pyrate:
You can go to war with a bad economy, it just is not going to turn out well, case and point the Soviets.

Do you even remember what you were arguing, because you just contradicted yourself?

This is actually a perfect example of one reason why the Republicans alienate most young voters. The anti-intellectual, revisionist history of the Republicans does not go well with a voter block that is made up of college students.

YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF AND YOU ARE INSULTING ME. Stop trying to debate historical topics with me because you have nothing to offer.

BTW I still have not changed my party since the last time I told you I am not a republican.

No I didn't. I said you cannot go to war like Germany without a half decent economy. You don't take over most of Europe and hold it for a couple of years on the back of a poor economy.

The Soviets did not do the same as Germany. The Soviets suffered massive casualties, both military and civilian, and had Germany take over most of their country. Thanks to the famous Russian winter that has saved them from invaders countless times, plus the fact that Germany was busy fighting the rest of the world, they managed to hold out long enough for the Germans to collapse. At that point they just marched to Berlin.

Germany was incredibly successful in WW2 given the resources they had. They were able to be successful because they had a solid economy. The Soviets on the other hand were utterly useless with the resources they had. They had a shoddy economy.

recruit00:
You know, this is not even worth arguing anymore. You refuse to listen to any reason or read what I actually say so I'm gone. This is a waste of my time.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Tyler Perry:

farson135:

Tyler Perry:
That one's kinda weak. Again, that's analysis. I'm referring to actual facts and figures. Numbers. Verifiable data.

It is facts. They say that this politician signed an affirmation from a particular group and he didn't.

That's not what I got out of it. It seemed to me the complaint was that this "affirmation" was a pledge to Grover Norquist, and they said it wasn't. That's analysis. The politician DID sign the "affirmation" in question.

He signed a pledge that wasn't to the people they said it was to. That is not analysis.

pyrate:
No I didn't. I said you cannot go to war like Germany without a half decent economy. You don't take over most of Europe and hold it for a couple of years on the back of a poor economy.

The Soviet Union did.

The Soviets did not do the same as Germany.

Really.

The Soviets suffered massive casualties, both military and civilian, and had Germany take over most of their country.

The Germans suffered massive casualties as well and the soviets took over about half of their country.

Thanks to the famous Russian winter that has saved them from invaders countless times, plus the fact that Germany was busy fighting the rest of the world, they managed to hold out long enough for the Germans to collapse. At that point they just marched to Berlin.

No. Germany could not produce enough equipment to supply their soldiers (such as the fact that they could not supply their soldiers with proper cold weather gear before the winter came). That combined with poor planning and leadership lead to the fall.

Germany was incredibly successful in WW2 given the resources they had. They were able to be successful because they had a solid economy. The Soviets on the other hand were utterly useless with the resources they had. They had a shoddy economy.

If the German economy was so good then why did the Soviets out produce them in everything? Why exactly did the Germans loose air superiority when they started out so ahead of everybody? Read through any of the volumes of "Germany and the Second World War"- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_the_Second_World_War

farson135:

pyrate:
No I didn't. I said you cannot go to war like Germany without a half decent economy. You don't take over most of Europe and hold it for a couple of years on the back of a poor economy.

The Soviet Union did.

I think your definiton of "most of Europe" is slightly off. Also, the only country that actually had the USSR troops enter was Czechoslovakia (in 1968). If all Warsaw Pact countries decided to rebel, there was no way for the USSR to hold them.

Stalin didn't even dare try to take Yugoslavia by force after 1948, and that was only one rebellious country that refused to fall in line with him.

Vegosiux:
I think your definiton of "most of Europe" is slightly off.

You are right but they did take over Eastern Europe. Then again Germany did not take over most of Europe. Many of the countries Germany "took over" became client states or puppet governments.

Also, the only country that actually had the USSR troops enter was Czechoslovakia (in 1968). If all Warsaw Pact countries decided to rebel, there was no way for the USSR to hold them.

I am pretty sure they could. All the Warsaw pact nations had basically the same weapons and equipment so the victor would be the one that used it the best and had the most. The Soviet Union defiantly had the most.

Stalin didn't even dare try to take Yugoslavia by force after 1948, and that was only one rebellious country that refused to fall in line with him.

It wasn't really rebellious they just freed themselves before the Soviets managed to get to them. Basically the Warsaw pact is all the countries the Soviets could get to (with a few minor exceptions).

farson135:

Vegosiux:
I think your definiton of "most of Europe" is slightly off.

You are right but they did take over Eastern Europe. Then again Germany did not take over most of Europe. Many of the countries Germany "took over" became client states or puppet governments.

Well in that case the Soviets didn't "take over" Eastern Europe.

Also, the only country that actually had the USSR troops enter was Czechoslovakia (in 1968). If all Warsaw Pact countries decided to rebel, there was no way for the USSR to hold them.

I am pretty sure they could. All the Warsaw pact nations had basically the same weapons and equipment so the victor would be the one that used it the best and had the most. The Soviet Union defiantly had the most.

Ah, "you're pretty sure". I suppose that makes it a fact then.

Stalin didn't even dare try to take Yugoslavia by force after 1948, and that was only one rebellious country that refused to fall in line with him.

It wasn't really rebellious they just freed themselves before the Soviets managed to get to them. Basically the Warsaw pact is all the countries the Soviets could get to (with a few minor exceptions).

Actually, some support was offered by the Soviets in the recapture of Belgrade. Yugoslavia continued to be a member of the Cominform until 1948 (the HQ of that was in Belgrade, even), but Tito kept refusing to acknowledge Stalin authority and his desire to make Yugoslavia another USSR satellite. This angered ol' Joe quite much, as you could imagine, and Yugoslavia got expelled. Even having a defense plan for the case of a Soviet invasion, but in the end, Stalin died before he could make a move, he simply didn't have the standing armies to pull it off, even with support from other USSR satellites.

But hey, don't let a native of those parts lecture you on the history of those parts, after all, you're A-muh-ri-can, which means everything you say automatically becomes fact, right?

But no. There was no way for the Soviets to hold their satellites via occupation if they decided to rebel...actually, scratchs that "if", they actually did rebel, didn't they. One would think that the collapse of the USSR and Warsaw pact made it obvious that there was no way for the Soviets to keep their hold on it all, because, well, history shows that they couldn't.

Had the Soviets really had the capabilities you attribute to them, why the hell did the entire thing crash down on them? Why didn't they just, you know, invade and hold them with their broken economy, like you said they could?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139877/near-record-say-democratic-party-liberal.aspx

This might be a little old but I think the republicans still have a very solid voting block that agrees with these results. Their not dying and it's not that they're too conservative, they just alienate certain groups of people that would normally vote for their policies.

Hispanics are overwhelmingly for smaller government and lower taxes, but republicans support voter ID laws and increased punishments for illegal aliens no matter how honest and hard working they are. Lots of mothers could get behind the family values part, too bad republicans tend to support the laws that suppress laws protecting women's rights in the workplace, scandels involving secretaries, and of course contraception. It's not obvious to me how republicans could win the african american vote because doing anything to appease this group would go against every fiber of the republican party, but republicans wouldn't even need this demographic. They'd have a majority of hispanics, a majority of white men, and a majority of white women.

Democrats can't win with just the youth vote and african american vote, thank god the republican party is controlled by old white men or they might have figured out how to win every election for small government ever.

Vegosiux:
Well in that case the Soviets didn't "take over" Eastern Europe.

Yes they did.

Ah, "you're pretty sure". I suppose that makes it a fact then.

The only question is the period, i.e. who was in charge of the army.

Actually, some support was offered by the Soviets in the recapture of Belgrade.

They can offer all they want. Tito was the big player in the freedom of Yugoslavia. Stalin never would have allowed Yugoslavia to drift away if he had troops there.

Stalin died before he could make a move, he simply didn't have the standing armies to pull it off, even with support from other USSR satellites.

He did not have the standing army to fight against the west and Yugoslavia. Besides, by the end, Stalin was too busy trying to kill off as many Jews and party members as possible.

Had the Soviets really had the capabilities you attribute to them, why the hell did the entire thing crash down on them? Why didn't they just, you know, invade and hold them with their broken economy, like you said they could?

Because Gorbachev said he wouldn't. In 1988 he said he would not invoke the Brezhnev Doctrine and afterwards Poland held free elections and Solidarity took over. You can also look at the "Sinatra Doctrine"- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinatra_Doctrine

You just said that I should listen to a native person but if you did not know this I will stick to my years of study and ignore whatever you learned in high school.

farson135:

Vegosiux:
Well in that case the Soviets didn't "take over" Eastern Europe.

Yes they did.

Ahem.

Then again Germany did not take over most of Europe. Many of the countries Germany "took over" became client states or puppet governments.

If you want to stick by what you said, then no, no they didn't.

Because Gorbachev said he wouldn't. In 1988 he said he would not invoke the Brezhnev Doctrine and afterwards Poland held free elections and Solidarity took over. You can also look at the "Sinatra Doctrine"- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinatra_Doctrine

Why yes, I wonder why that happened.

That was sarcasm, by the way. In case you didn't notice.

You just said that I should listen to a native person but if you did not know this I will stick to my years of study and ignore whatever you learned in high school.

Oh, I did know that. But I saw no reason for writing up a dissertation on the post-WW2 history of Eastern Europe, since that's kind of...not what the discussion was about, now was it?

Your attitude is becoming a tad annoying. But then again, why am I not surprised? I mean you're hell-bent on shifting the goalposts and antagonizing anyone who disagrees, this is eerily predictable.

But, you know what, I'm done with you. Feel free to strut around as if you own the place now, I'm going to call it quits here.

farson135:

Vegosiux:
I think your definiton of "most of Europe" is slightly off.

You are right but they did take over Eastern Europe. Then again Germany did not take over most of Europe. Many of the countries Germany "took over" became client states or puppet governments.

Also, the only country that actually had the USSR troops enter was Czechoslovakia (in 1968). If all Warsaw Pact countries decided to rebel, there was no way for the USSR to hold them.

I am pretty sure they could. All the Warsaw pact nations had basically the same weapons and equipment so the victor would be the one that used it the best and had the most. The Soviet Union defiantly had the most.

Stalin didn't even dare try to take Yugoslavia by force after 1948, and that was only one rebellious country that refused to fall in line with him.

It wasn't really rebellious they just freed themselves before the Soviets managed to get to them. Basically the Warsaw pact is all the countries the Soviets could get to (with a few minor exceptions).

Why do you think they became puppet states?

Do you think they went to Germany going "hey guys, we don't think we can govern out own country too well, you know, not being superior and all, so can you guys rule for us, in exchange we will sell you our resources for lets say...how about free".

Of course they didn't. They became puppets of Germany because Germany walked in with their army, killed everyone that offered resistance and put puppets in place. That is how it works. Germany was conquering for territory, not destruction, thus they were taking over governments.

The Soviets ended up just taking what the Germans left behind. As the Germans collapsed the Soviets waltzed all the way to Berlin, picking up what the Germans left behind. They replaced the German puppets with Soviet puppets. The Soviets did not so much conquer Eastern Europe, it had already been conquered, they just found the door open and decided to make themselves at home.

Vegosiux:

farson135:

Vegosiux:
Well in that case the Soviets didn't "take over" Eastern Europe.

Yes they did.

Ahem.

Then again Germany did not take over most of Europe. Many of the countries Germany "took over" became client states or puppet governments.

If you want to stick by what you said, then no, no they didn't.

Yes they did. I never said the Soviet military maintained control over those areas but they did take over Eastern Europe. The Germans established puppet states without even finishing the invasion. Vichy France was established in the areas the Germans DID NOT conquer. And on.

Why yes, I wonder why that happened.

That was sarcasm, by the way. In case you didn't notice.

So you are saying that because the Soviets did not enter the Warsaw pact states (despite the fact that they said they wouldn't) that means they could not.

Do you know why the original Velvet Revolution happened? It was not meant to be a complete break with communism it was meant to reform communism. Gorbachev was trying to do the same thing. That is REFORM the communist system. It got out of his control but if he sure as hell could have kept those states from leaving. How do I know? Because all the states had basically the same army just with different sizes. The Soviets had the largest army and the most equipment. In a battle where everybody is equally matched in equipment, training, and leadership (there is likely no one outstanding to take up the post) it is numbers that decide the day. Prove your case or just stop.

Oh, I did know that. But I saw no reason for writing up a dissertation on the post-WW2 history of Eastern Europe, since that's kind of...not what the discussion was about, now was it?

Given the FACT that Gorbachev stated that he was not going to stop the Warsaw Pact nations from leaving, you ignoring it is intellectually dishonest.

Also if you honestly cared about the fact that this is off topic you would not have posted to begin with.

Your attitude is becoming a tad annoying. But then again, why am I not surprised? I mean you're hell-bent on shifting the goalposts and antagonizing anyone who disagrees, this is eerily predictable.

Shifting the goalposts and antagonizing people. In your very last post you insulted me and you have completely ignored the evidence.

But, you know what, I'm done with you. Feel free to strut around as if you own the place now, I'm going to call it quits here.

Good. You have added nothing of value to the discussion. Since you have no evidence you are of no use to me. Auf Wiedersehen.

pyrate:
Why do you think they became puppet states?

Do you think they went to Germany going "hey guys, we don't think we can govern out own country too well, you know, not being superior and all, so can you guys rule for us, in exchange we will sell you our resources for lets say...how about free".

Of course they didn't. They became puppets of Germany because Germany walked in with their army, killed everyone that offered resistance and put puppets in place. That is how it works.

What about Vichy France?

Germany was conquering for territory, not destruction, thus they were taking over governments.

They sure as hell were conquering for destruction and they were not taking over a lot of governments (replacing perhaps), hence this map-

The Soviets ended up just taking what the Germans left behind. As the Germans collapsed the Soviets waltzed all the way to Berlin, picking up what the Germans left behind. They replaced the German puppets with Soviet puppets. The Soviets did not so much conquer Eastern Europe, it had already been conquered, they just found the door open and decided to make themselves at home.

What? First of all that is still conquest (they conquered it from the Germans). Second of all there were still legitimate governments out there. The Polish government in exile was still out there and still fighting. Also some of the puppet states AND ALLIES fought back but failed.

BTW waltzed my fucking ass. The Soviets took 80,000 casualties just trying to take the fucking city.

The original GOP is long dead an almost utterly forgotten, as for this new GOP no it is still alive.

farson135:

pyrate:
Why do you think they became puppet states?

Do you think they went to Germany going "hey guys, we don't think we can govern out own country too well, you know, not being superior and all, so can you guys rule for us, in exchange we will sell you our resources for lets say...how about free".

Of course they didn't. They became puppets of Germany because Germany walked in with their army, killed everyone that offered resistance and put puppets in place. That is how it works.

What about Vichy France?

Germany was conquering for territory, not destruction, thus they were taking over governments.

They sure as hell were conquering for destruction and they were not taking over a lot of governments (replacing perhaps), hence this map-

The Soviets ended up just taking what the Germans left behind. As the Germans collapsed the Soviets waltzed all the way to Berlin, picking up what the Germans left behind. They replaced the German puppets with Soviet puppets. The Soviets did not so much conquer Eastern Europe, it had already been conquered, they just found the door open and decided to make themselves at home.

What? First of all that is still conquest (they conquered it from the Germans). Second of all there were still legitimate governments out there. The Polish government in exile was still out there and still fighting. Also some of the puppet states AND ALLIES fought back but failed.

BTW waltzed my fucking ass. The Soviets took 80,000 casualties just trying to take the fucking city.

It is all relative. Germany launched Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. It took nearly 3 years before the Soviets started to push them back. The Soviets really started rolling towards the end of 1943. It took them less than 18 months to take Berlin. They made it to Warsaw, pretty much where the Germans launched Barbarossa from, in a bit over 12 months.

It turns out that if you destroy the enemy army that is attacking you, they don't have as many resources to fight back when you attack them.

As for Vichy France, that was a deal made after Germany had bent France over the table. The deal was not to divide France up among the Axis powers, in exchange they would be obedient to the Germans. The Germans controlled most aspects of Vichy France during the war. They were a puppet, just like all the other governments that aided Germany.

pyrate:
It is all relative. Germany launched Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. It took nearly 3 years before the Soviets started to push them back. The Soviets really started rolling towards the end of 1943. It took them less than 18 months to take Berlin. They made it to Warsaw, pretty much where the Germans launched Barbarossa from, in a bit over 12 months.

It turns out that if you destroy the enemy army that is attacking you, they don't have as many resources to fight back when you attack them.

Your point? You have yet to prove your original assertion (likely because you can't).

As for Vichy France, that was a deal made after Germany had bent France over the table. The deal was not to divide France up among the Axis powers, in exchange they would be obedient to the Germans. The Germans controlled most aspects of Vichy France during the war. They were a puppet, just like all the other governments that aided Germany.

And I support you are going to ignore the fact that Vichy France is the area that Germany DID NOT conquer.

farson135:

pyrate:
It is all relative. Germany launched Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. It took nearly 3 years before the Soviets started to push them back. The Soviets really started rolling towards the end of 1943. It took them less than 18 months to take Berlin. They made it to Warsaw, pretty much where the Germans launched Barbarossa from, in a bit over 12 months.

It turns out that if you destroy the enemy army that is attacking you, they don't have as many resources to fight back when you attack them.

Your point? You have yet to prove your original assertion (likely because you can't).

As for Vichy France, that was a deal made after Germany had bent France over the table. The deal was not to divide France up among the Axis powers, in exchange they would be obedient to the Germans. The Germans controlled most aspects of Vichy France during the war. They were a puppet, just like all the other governments that aided Germany.

And I support you are going to ignore the fact that Vichy France is the area that Germany DID NOT conquer.

My original assertion was that they waltzed to Berlin. Now obviously that is not what they actually did, only an idiot would interpret it literally. The comment is in context of the events on the Eastern Front. The march to Berlin was significantly easier than the previous years of fighting. You can make all the claims you want, but you will find very few people that interpret statements with disregard to their context.

As for Vichy France, the Germans did not conquer them because they surrendered. Germany had already wiped out any hope the French had on a military level. Instead of being conquered like the rest of France, Vichy France simply handed control over to Germany. Claiming that the German war machine on their doorstep had nothing to do with cooperation with Germany is laughable.

I am not sure about the strange textbooks they use in Texas or wherever you got your education, but from where I come from, if a country surrenders because the enemy army has fucked up most of their country then it counts as being conquered.

farson135:

Shifting the goalposts and antagonizing people. In your very last post you insulted me and you have completely ignored the evidence.

Your "evidence" was "I'm pretty sure" and a couple of wikipedia links that did nothing to suport your claims, and anyone who read the whole article instead of selectively picking statements out of context can see that.

But yes, I understand I was being rude, so I apologize. From now on, I'll refrain from saying you're full of shit.

Good. You have added nothing of value to the discussion. Since you have no evidence you are of no use to me. Auf Wiedersehen.

Who do you think you are, a supreme overlord? Unglaublich...

*sigh* Can't you hit me with something I don't see coming for once?

pyrate:
My original assertion was that they waltzed to Berlin. Now obviously that is not what they actually did, only an idiot would interpret it literally. The comment is in context of the events on the Eastern Front. The march to Berlin was significantly easier than the previous years of fighting. You can make all the claims you want, but you will find very few people that interpret statements with disregard to their context.

No it wasn't. The Soviets took an ungodly amount of casualties and lost a huge amount of equipment fighting against an army that had already effectively lost and was using worst equipment and poorer soldiers. That is not waltzing in any sense of the word. The Soviets had a hell of a time getting anywhere. In fact it was said that Stalin only 4 English words yes, no, Western Front. Stalin was despite for another front because the Germans were still fighting like hell. Read through the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

As for Vichy France, the Germans did not conquer them because they surrendered.

STOP, did you just say that the Germans did not conquer them? That makes your next statements seem rather stupid.

Germany had already wiped out any hope the French had on a military level. Instead of being conquered like the rest of France, Vichy France simply handed control over to Germany. Claiming that the German war machine on their doorstep had nothing to do with cooperation with Germany is laughable.

Actually I was claiming that Germany did not conquer Vichy France because they didn't take over the fucking territory or people. Try keeping up.

I am not sure about the strange textbooks they use in Texas or wherever you got your education, but from where I come from, if a country surrenders because the enemy army has fucked up most of their country then it counts as being conquered.

Wow, you really are losing the plot.

Given the fact that Vichy France maintained its semi-autonomy and was not occupied until several years later, no it was not conquered. The French government still maintained control (and quite a bit of control at that) even after the occupation.

con•quer/ˈkäNGkər/ -Overcome and take control of (a place or people) by use of military force.

BTW- are you saying that the Germans in German East Africa were conquered by the Allies during the First World War? Because I think this guy would tell you to go fuck yourself-

image

In fact he would likely say something to the effect of we gave up but we were never conquered. The British military was in no shape whatsoever to defeat him.

Vegosiux:
Snip

What happened to you calling if quits? I suppose I hit a nerve and your pride will not let you back down.

Your "evidence" was "I'm pretty sure" and a couple of wikipedia links that did nothing to suport your claims, and anyone who read the whole article instead of selectively picking statements out of context can see that.

Actually they did. You want to ignore the basic fact of the case and it is a FACT that Gorbachev was trying to reform the Soviet Union and it is a FACT that he stated that the Warsaw Pact nations could go their own way. You have yet to prove in any way, shape, or form that the Soviets could not maintain control over the Warsaw Pact countries. My assertion that the Soviets had more of everything is uncontested and yet you do not seem to have the ability to counter it. Provide some actual facts or shut the fuck up.

But yes, I understand I was being rude, so I apologize. From now on, I'll refrain from saying you're full of shit.

Wow, I am sure that took a lot to say. Maybe next time you can move up to being sincere.

Who do you think you are, a supreme overlord? Unglaublich...

*sigh* Can't you hit me with something I don't see coming for once?

You provide neither entertainment value nor have you added a single iota of information to the conversation. Yes, you are completely useless to the conversation. Unless you have something of value to add, go away.

farson135:

What happened to you calling if quits? I suppose I hit a nerve and your pride will not let you back down.

I'm not discussing the history of USSR anymore, am I. So yeah, I called it quits. Quits =/= vow of silence. I also don't seem to be the one agitated to the point of throwing "fucks" around here, either.

Provide some actual facts or shut the fuck up.

I did. You went "But but Gorbachev!". I went "Now I wonder how he got up there." Implying something, of course. I wonder what that may have been, hmm. Sorry if I stick by not discussing this further, you'll have to figure it out yourself, should you chose to do so. Which you won't, of course, you'll just throw more condescending insults my way.

You provide neither entertainment value nor have you added a single iota of information to the conversation. Yes, you are completely useless to the conversation. Unless you have something of value to add, go away.

Contrary to your belief, I do not exist to "be useful" to you. Nice weasel-wording there, by the way, and how you left out the bit of your quote out where you said something else, namely that "I'm of no use to you".

So it's "the conversation" now, huh. Well you don't own that, so you don't get to tell me whether or not I'm allowed to participate in it, either. Sorry, mate.

Plus, if you actually bothered to look at what I provided...but hey, stupid me for expecting you to do so, right? My bad, sorry. I forgot you live in some kind of a libertarian utopia where my worth is directly proportionate to how much stuff I can deliver to your ass on a silver platter and you get to tell me what I'm allowed to do and what I'm not allowed to do simply because a) I exist and b) I am not you.

Vegosiux:
I'm not discussing the history of USSR anymore, am I. So yeah, I called it quits. Quits =/= vow of silence.

And yet you just did discuss it AGAIN.

I also don't seem to be the one agitated to the point of throwing "fucks" around here, either.

Since when do I need to be agitated to say fuck?

I did.

Your only evidence you mentioned is that they didn't. I provided a perfectly plausible explanation for why they didn't and you have yet to counter it.

I went "Now I wonder how he got up there." Implying something, of course. I wonder what that may have been, hmm.

So your implication is better than my evidence. Got to love that.

He put into power because the old guard was dying off and the young people within the party wanted to reform the system (as I said earlier).

Sorry if I stick by not discussing this further, you'll have to figure it out yourself, should you chose to do so. Which you won't, of course, you'll just throw more condescending insults my way.

Coming from you of all people that statement is meaningless (unless you mean to apply it to yourself).

Contrary to your belief, I do not exist to "be useful" to you.

Nope, but then again since you are useless both to me and the conversation why continue? I do it out of politeness while you probably cannot let it go that you have nothing to counter me.

Nice weasel-wording there, by the way, and how you left out the bit of your quote out where you said something else, namely that "I'm of no use to you".

You are of no use to both.

So it's "the conversation" now, huh. Well you don't own that, so you don't get to tell me whether or not I'm allowed to participate in it, either. Sorry, mate.

Never said you were not allowed to participate only that you added nothing to it and with this post you are continuing that trend.

BTW since the conversation requires two people I can choose whether or not you are in my conversation or if you are just the weird guy staring through the window.

Plus, if you actually bothered to look at what I provided...but hey, stupid me for expecting you to do so, right?

Like what? He didn't because he couldn't is the only thing you said. That is not evidence. I showed he could and you have not contested my facts you have only attacked me.

I forgot you live in some kind of a libertarian utopia where my worth is directly proportionate to how much stuff I can deliver to your ass on a silver platter and you get to tell me what I'm allowed to do and what I'm not allowed to do simply because a) I exist and b) I am not you.

Since you have nothing of value to say you are unneeded. Don't like it? Add to the conversation next time.

farson135:

Nope, but then again since you are useless both to me and the conversation why continue? I do it out of politeness while you probably cannot let it go that you have nothing to counter me.

Out of politeness? Excuse me, but I don't think you'd know politeness if it came up to you and hit you across the face with a bus stop sign. The way you've been behaving in several threads I ran across you (and ones I just read) is not exactly polite.

Like what? He didn't because he couldn't is the only thing you said. That is not evidence. I showed he could.

No, you didn't. You did in no way conclusively prove that he could. Yes, you're saying you did, but, you didn't. All you proved was that Gorbachev made a choice not to try, and anyone who is alive and has ears can pretty much gather that on their own. You provided no conclusive evidence that trying to hold the East Bloc by force would have worked out for the USSR.

As for my "usefulness", all I will say is, someone is overestimating their own importance, and falsely believing they get to be the sole judge as to what is "useful" to the conversation and what isn't.

Vegosiux:
Out of politeness? Excuse me, but I don't think you'd know politeness if it came up to you and hit you across the face with a bus stop sign. The way you've been behaving in several threads I ran across you (and ones I just read) is not exactly polite.

I answer even when there is no advantage to me. You posted and I feel that politeness dictates that I respond. I do not stop myself from browbeating arrogant, pain in the ass people like yourself but no one can ever truly accuse me of ignoring them.

No, you didn't. You did in no way conclusively prove that he could. Yes, you're saying you did, but, you didn't.

The Russians had the equipment and manpower to maintain control over Eastern Europe. Here is the Soviet and Warsaw Pact Order of Battle in 1989. Read it and tell me I am wrong- http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/nato/warsawpact.html

All you proved was that Gorbachev made a choice not to try, and anyone who is alive and has ears can pretty much gather that on their own. You provided no conclusive evidence that trying to hold the East Bloc by force would have worked out for the USSR.

It did in the past.

As for my "usefulness", all I will say is, someone is overestimating their own importance, and falsely believing they get to be the sole judge as to what is "useful" to the conversation and what isn't.

Actually I do not believe that. However you have yet to provide any proof of anything. Go on, prove your case. If you can.

Is the republican party dying? YES!! their racist, sexest rants turn civilized people OFF! they backed themselves into a corner with the southern strategy deal they got all the pathetic racist dixiecrats and the phoney incredibly stupid so called evangelical votes! Now their a prisoner to these two toxic brain dead groups LOL. It's so damn hilarious watching republicans having to reject proven scientific facts to please these morons!! They look like complete fools arguing that dinosaurs bones aren't real!!!!!!!!!!!! or the earth only being less than 10,000 yrs old!! LOL. Any party that has sarah palin, michelle bachmann, newt gringrich, rick perry, rick santorum has got to be dying!! GOOD RIDDENS!!

knight4444:
Is the republican party dying? YES!! their racist, sexest rants turn civilized people OFF! they backed themselves into a corner with the southern strategy deal they got all the pathetic racist dixiecrats and the phoney incredibly stupid so called evangelical votes! Now their a prisoner to these two toxic brain dead groups LOL. It's so damn hilarious watching republicans having to reject proven scientific facts to please these morons!! They look like complete fools arguing that dinosaurs bones aren't real!!!!!!!!!!!! or the earth only being less than 10,000 yrs old!! LOL. Any party that has sarah palin, michelle bachmann, newt gringrich, rick perry, rick santorum has got to be dying!! GOOD RIDDENS!!

Calm down with the rage, friend.

Also, uh, heads up... You sort of resurrected a thread that died months ago...

I think it's nothing short of wishful thinking to imagine that the GOP is going away. It is certainly evolving, as our political climate becomes more and more polarized and based on "gotcha" politics and fear-pandering, but the idea that it will ever disappear is absurd.

I think your argument lacks a fundamental understanding of the institutions that are American political parties. Almost since the founding of the country, there has always been a sort of dichotomy between two political parties. There have been several third parties throughout the history of American politics, such as the Bull Moose or Populist party, but they died out after a few election cycles. Why is that? Third parties are not very viable in the American electorate for two main reasons: the "winner take all system" and the malleability of the platforms of the major parties. Because of these two main factors, it's almost impossible for the Republican Party to die out.

A function of the larger institution, the United States doesn't have a proportional representation system, where a party receives seats in the legislative based upon the proportion of the electorate. rather, our system is simply a win/lose situation. A candidate. in the US, with the exception of the president, needs to simply win a plurality of the vote in a certain district in order to win. This makes it nearly impossible for rising parties, with their lack of influence, capital and labor, to ever truly win an election. There are some notable exceptions, but this is the general case. Because the republican party is so entrenched in this system, it would be almost impossible for them to simply die out. And that isn't even a result on the party themselves, more the structuring of the grander institution that is the Federal government.

in terms of the party, major political parties are continually viable because there are a constantly evolving entity, a living political animal. The Republican party that we know today is not even close to being the party that existed 50 or even 100 years ago. The origins of the modern Republican party can be found during the Nixon and Reagen years: Nixon with his courting of former Dixiecrats through his nominations of supreme court justices and the "moral majority" of Evangelical conservatism that helped elect Reagan. The same thing goes for Democrats. The party of social justice and workers rights are products of major changes that occurred in during the Roosevelt and Johnson years. If the Republican party ever doesn't become viable(which at the moment still very much is, despite your earlier arguments. Not from a personal standpoint, but an objective) then it will change to meet the changing face of the electorate.

There's a reason that it's called the GOP. It isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

I pray to GOD the republican party dies quickly!! this party of corporations and the wealthy is destroying this poor country! The people have spoken the republicans "GREAT WHITE DOPE" Willard Rommey got kicked to the curb by over than 5 MILLION votes!! bye bye republican party

Witty Name Here:

knight4444:
Is the republican party dying? YES!! their racist, sexest rants turn civilized people OFF! they backed themselves into a corner with the southern strategy deal they got all the pathetic racist dixiecrats and the phoney incredibly stupid so called evangelical votes! Now their a prisoner to these two toxic brain dead groups LOL. It's so damn hilarious watching republicans having to reject proven scientific facts to please these morons!! They look like complete fools arguing that dinosaurs bones aren't real!!!!!!!!!!!! or the earth only being less than 10,000 yrs old!! LOL. Any party that has sarah palin, michelle bachmann, newt gringrich, rick perry, rick santorum has got to be dying!! GOOD RIDDENS!!

Calm down with the rage, friend.

Also, uh, heads up... You sort of resurrected a thread that died months ago...

Your point??

It is my opinion that the Republican Party will somehow will manage to muddle through.

Fox News is roughly the equivalent of MSNBC in terms of credibility. Neither are very credible but compared to groups like ThinkProgress which are openly and unapologeticaly biased those sources are more reputable.

Pretty sure everyone else plays second-fiddle compared to Fox's mastery (yet not subtle for anyone with a brain) of propaganda.

And, lo, God came upon this thread and said:

"Let there be necromancy!"

I do Believe the G.O.P. is dying out for several reasons (I do not express myself as well as most of you so have patience with me!)
1. Most young people are Liberal Democrats as they age they will continue to be Democrats.. MOST.. stay with there party.
2. There are more people who are seeking there own religion and organized Religion is failing mainly because of the hypocrites like Swaggart and Baker.. Religion has taken a blow.. The G.O.P. seems to embrace religion.
3. Separation of Church and State is largely accepted.
4. Younger folks are much more tolerant of Gays.. Abortion.. Not to mention immigration and a diverse society... These are the very thing the G.O.P. preaches against.. When you have a party that does not have the views of the majority of the people it will flounder and die.

Many Republicans are frustrated with the way the Republican party is headed. I personally think it's gotten filled with Religious crap that needs to get out. The Republican party needs to re-adjust it's views and move more to the Liberal side. So essentially, I would support a party that was fiscally conservative and Socially liberal, which is the Libertarian Party in a nutshell but I'm for any party that has these qualities.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here