Republican Party - 2009 - RIP?

[Serapth]

So, we all know the Republican party isn't exactly at it's peek popularity right now, what I wonder though, is the Republican party currently eating its own face?

First, obviously, they lose the election after pairing a former moderate with an... um... Sarah Palin, pushing many people into the Democrats waiting arms.

Then, post election they choose Michael Steele as chairman, which worked out sooo wonderfully. First off, he gets into a war of words with Rush then even worse, cedes to Rush's authority. Then, he comes out as pro-choice, something that appears to be a bit of a no-no in the right. So, all told, not a wonderful term as chairman and expected to be replaced in the future.

Then there is the constant tv appearances of former VP Dick Cheney... why won't this man just shut up? In an effort to defend his legacy, he is coming down on President Bush, President Obama, America in general and of course, Colon Powell. This man seems to be single handedly destroying any chance of the Republicans ever being a viable party again... except...

Rush Limbaugh. My god is this man a polarizing force. He has a very loyal base of about 20M listeners that will do whatever he tells them. That said, those 20M people were going to vote Republican anyways... how many millions of voters has he turned away. Public fights with the likes of Powell and Ridge are not helping the party.

I think Newt Gingrich ( who I really like for his smackdown on Pelosi ) said it best.


I think Republicans are going to be very foolish if they run around deciding they're going to see how much they can purge us down to the smallest possible base.


So... are the Republicans causing irreparable damage? Are we seeing the Republican party death throes?


[ Links provided later if needed, but I don't think I made any non matter of fact statements, so let me know if I have ]

[Narradisall]

Sometimes political parties go into meltdown.

The things are like Pheonix's though, they just rise again from the ashes. Maybe a year, maybe a decade, they'll always come back. Like Erkle.

[Wraith]

In an effort to defend his legacy, he is coming down on President Bush, President Obama, America in general and of course, Colon Powell.Colin Powell

My vote would be No, it may not be alive and kicking and doing fine, but it's not the end.

[alienmastermind]

Mr. Powell represents the moderates in the Republican party now. Which, in and of itself might be the problem. There's simply no room among the new ideologues of the Republican party for a guy like Powell, or hell, even a Goldwater anymore.

I voted that the Republican Party, as it once was, is going to be no more. The 'big tent' now includes Rush Limbaugh as its mouthpiece, to which even its leadership owe fealty and fawn all over him. That would be like the Dems paying fealty to Rachel Maddow or something equally nutso.

The blood and guts Republican party will always have a base of support, but the old things are proving difficult to motivate said base...especially since the jingoism of the past 8 years or so has finally reached an unfashionable state.

I think the Republicans have to look into a mirror and say 'you know what? we don't represent the majority of Americans anymore'.

Or, they can spew invective, and say monumentally stupid things like former Speaker Gingrich did on Sunday.

[Serapth]

Sometimes political parties go into meltdown.

The things are like Pheonix's though, they just rise again from the ashes. Maybe a year, maybe a decade, they'll always come back. Like Erkle.

The US history is litered with dead parties. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_political_parties_in_the_United_S tates)

[carnage11]

I voted yes. It's time for change. ;) :D

[Narradisall]

The US history is litered with dead parties. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_political_parties_in_the_United_S tates)

Meh, lots of those seemed to be repeats of the same party over the decades, hell some didn't even change the name from the previos defunct party.

Just cause they don't come back under the same name, doesn't make them a different party.

[Kelegacy]

I saw Jesus Camp last night...and I was terrified. I'd be fine with the party alive and kicking as long as the party is never ruled by those scary, brainwashing evangelical crazies. Those are the worst kind of right-wingers.

[National Kato]

I saw Jesus Camp last night...and I was terrified. I'd be fine with the party alive and kicking as long as the party is never ruled by those scary, brainwashing evangelical crazies. Those are the worst kind of right-wingers.

Interesting, Kel, as I just watched that doc for the first time last week. You're right, it was frightening. I kept thinking to myself, "These kids are so smart and level-headed but what's coming out of their mouths is so scary." Specifically that brown-haired little girl they followed. She seemed so...with it for that age. I truly worry about the effects this type of indoctrination will have on them when they're old enough to think for themselves.

[Ox]

Find me someone who thinks the Republican Party is dead and who isn't delighted by the prospect.

No luck? That's because it's little more than wishful thinking. Major parties don't die simply because they lost an election and took a few months to recollect themselves. They die because a new issue arises that both dwarfs the issues that were the raison d'être of the party and because the issue creates new and previously unknown cleavages in the party. Neither element is present here.

Karl Rove famously predicted a permanent Republican majority because the Democrats seemed dominated by their most extreme elements and couldn't find their asses with both hands. Look how that turned out.

[Kelegacy]

Interesting, Kel, as I just watched that doc for the first time last week. You're right, it was frightening. I kept thinking to myself, "These kids are so smart and level-headed but what's coming out of their mouths is so scary." Specifically that brown-haired little girl they followed. She seemed so...with it for that age. I truly worry about the effects this type of indoctrination will have on them when they're old enough to think for themselves.

It's easier to condition a child at that age. They are sponges. If you keep hammering something into a child you could possibly craft anything you want. But most of the stuff that came out of those children's mouths was probably rhetoric spewed by the parents, and the children are just acting as parrots.

It's brainwashing and it's frightening. They are being homeschooled as well, so they have little contact with the rest of the world. They are broiling in a religious atmosphere, like little soldiers incubating in a lab until they are ready to strike. I equate it to child abuse.

We have some Penecostals here in our office. My girlfriend once attended one of their services and was so bothered by it she never went back. Talking in tongues, rolling in the aisles, crying profusely and running around the church screaming...it seems incredibly cultish, and witnessing it disturbs me.

[Crowe]

Jesus Camp- "We've got too many christian grown ups who are too fat and lazy, they dont want to give up their evening meals".......Says the lady who clearly hasn't missed a meal for at least 15 years.

As for the death of republican party I can't comment hah, but from this side of the world they don't seem to be going anywhere.

[Kelegacy]

Jesus Camp- "We've got too many christian grown ups who are too fat and lazy, they dont want to give up their evening meals".......Says the lady who clearly hasn't missed a meal for at least 15 years.


I noticed the same thing as soon as she said it, and commented out loud. So says the gluttonous sinner who is preaching and accusing 8-10 year olds about how evil their sins are, making them cry.

She even talked about putting Harry Potter to death. Yeah, that's pure Christian Love right there...

[Xydarc]

I like shiny things.

[Serapth]

Find me someone who thinks the Republican Party is dead and who isn't delighted by the prospect.

No luck? That's because it's little more than wishful thinking. Major parties don't die simply because they lost an election and took a few months to recollect themselves. They die because a new issue arises that both dwarfs the issues that were the raison d'être of the party and because the issue creates new and previously unknown cleavages in the party. Neither element is present here.


You don't think the massive split between moderates and conservatives has the potential to cleave the party?


Karl Rove famously predicted a permanent Republican majority because the Democrats seemed dominated by their most extreme elements and couldn't find their asses with both hands. Look how that turned out.

Well, in Karl's defense, had the Republicans not had such a terrible few years ( economy collapse, in a quagmire of war(s), etc... ) the Democrats really wouldn't have had a chance... they were WAYYY to far left leaning to be a viable party. Hell, had the Republicans not picked Palin, they would probably still be in the Whitehouse now.

Frankly, from the point Rove made those predictions, the Republicans would really have to fuck things up for him to be wrong. Amazingly, they did. Kudos.

[Telefrog]

I votd "No" but it's not "doing fine" either. The Republicans have some major debate going on right now. They need to get their house in order.

Here's a particularly apt article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/25/colin.powell.moderate.voice/index.html?iref=mpstoryview).

Among Republicans, Powell, Cheney and Limbaugh are equally revered with favorability ratings in the 60s, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll.

But among all voters questioned, Powell has a favorability rate of 70 percent compared to 30 percent for Limbaugh. A poll a week ago found that Cheney had a favorability rate of 37 percent.

"Colin Powell is not the guy you want to pick a fight with," Schneider said. "He's more popular than Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh combined.

Between the two polls, Limbaugh's unfavorable rating among all respondents was 53 percent and Cheney's 55 percent.


That speaks volumes to me. The base love them some Cheney and Limbaugh, but moderates (you know, the ones that elected Obama) favor Powell more. That's a problem for Republicans, especially since Powell backed Obama over McCain.

[Serapth]

A poll a week ago found that Cheney had a favorability rate of 37 percent.

I have trouble believing 37% of Americans own large corporations or work in the defense industry....

I just can't fathom another reason to approve of him.

[Kelegacy]

That speaks volumes to me. The base love them some Cheney and Limbaugh, but moderates (you know, the ones that elected Obama) favor Powell more. That's a problem for Republicans, especially since Powell backed Obama over McCain.

He only backed him because they're "brothas".

Of course I'm kidding, but some people thought that.

[Ox]

You don't think the massive split between moderates and conservatives has the potential to cleave the party?
Meh. Moderates and non-moderates always split: they don't agree with each other. Every major party in a democracy goes through the same cycle: moderates and ideologues decide they're fed up with the party in power and form an alliance, putting aside the issues that divide them in favor of the ones upon which they agree. They attain power and work together on their agenda. Eventually, each side gets fed up swallowing their bile at their allies, and their agenda runs into problems that can't be easily fixed. The alliance is no longer worth sustaining, and it fractures. The moderates run over and side with the party out of power, deciding it's the lesser of two evils. And then the cycle repeats.

What are the differences between moderates and conservatives? Foreign policy? Moderates hated Nixon's foreign policy, but they grew tired of Carter's, too. Taxes? Somehow I doubt their current love affair with Democratic tax plans will last for multiple decades. Abortion? Sure, NARAL speaks for the center of American politics. Gay rights? 49% of attendees at the Republican National Convention in 2008 endorsed civil unions. If you believe there is an irreversible trend toward moderate acceptance of gay marriage, maybe the Republicans will be a step behind and be battered for another election or two. But moral outrage at the very notion that someone might be hesitant about gay marriage isn't going to become a universal sentiment anytime soon, the Internet notwithstanding.

Ultimately, leftwing ideologues and moderates have just as many serious and severe disagreements with moderates as rightwing ideologues do. Right now, moderates are more willing to swallow their disagreements with the left wing than the right wing. I haven't heard a plausible theory for why this would continue for perpetuity.

Well, in Karl's defense, had the Republicans not had such a terrible few years ( economy collapse, in a quagmire of war(s), etc... ) the Democrats really wouldn't have had a chance... they were WAYYY to far left leaning to be a viable party.
He said that in spring 2001, as I recall. Who won the popular vote in the 2000 Presidential election?

I don't hate Karl Rove as the fashionable people do, but it was a pretty dumb sentiment at the time he made it.

[Ink Asylum]

Karl Rove, to my knowledge, has never been quoted as saying he has attained a permanent Republican majority, it was just his dream goal.

A more amusingly misguided quote comes from Grover Norquist after Bush's 2004 victory: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24186-2004Nov4.html)

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

[Ultima Thulian]

It's a pattern folks. When it comes to voting for Presidents, this is the same song and dance the two political parties have played for the last few decades. One party gets in, bad shit eventually happens (sometimes the fault of the politicians, sometimes not). People get pissed and begin believing in the misguided notion that voting guys from the other party will bring change and fix things. People learn they don't, get pissed again, then unlean what they learned, and vote for the other party, and repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat...

It's all the same. It's all bullshit folks.

[Ultima Thulian]

I have trouble believing 37% of Americans own large corporations or work in the defense industry....

I just can't fathom another reason to approve of him.

I can fathom another reason. He's Republican. So other people who are Republican "approve" of him simply because he's also a Republican.

This is a country that suffers from brain-dead voters that engage in a 90%+ (yes...I'll provide links if ya want) incumbency rate. In other words, at least in Congress, we'll vote in the same monkey over and over again and wonder why we see the same shit over and over again. Granted, this doesn't really apply to Dick as of now, but it's important to understand the mindset of some voters. There are tons, TONS, of people who will vote/approve/endorse people just for the simple fact they happen to be in the same club as them. It's one big tree-house circle jerk folks, and its members only.

[BlackPete]

That speaks volumes to me. The base love them some Cheney and Limbaugh, but moderates (you know, the ones that elected Obama) favor Powell more. That's a problem for Republicans, especially since Powell backed Obama over McCain.

It also doesn't help that Cheney basically said he'd vote for Rush over Powell.

This boggles me... Powell's a guy who literally put his life on the line for the country and actually served for the country's sake, and seems to believe in putting the country first ahead of himself.

On the other hand... Cheney, Bush, Rush, Rumsfeld, etc. were chickenhawks who actively avoided military duty, put American soldiers in harm's way, and basically put party before country.

Yet according to the right wingers, Powell's the one who's a RINO and a traitor.

It's hard to wrap my head around that.

[Deadend]

It also doesn't help that Cheney basically said he'd vote for Rush over Powell.

This boggles me... Powell's a guy who literally put his life on the line for the country and actually served for the country's sake, and seems to believe in putting the country first ahead of himself.

On the other hand... Cheney, Bush, Rush, Rumsfeld, etc. were chickenhawks who actively avoided military duty, put American soldiers in harm's way, and basically put party before country.

Yet according to the right wingers, Powell's the one who's a RINO and a traitor.

It's hard to wrap my head around that.
It's because the Republican party has become extremely insular and has pulled so far to the fucking right that it would be funny if it wasn't sadly true.

Don't question the leadership, Don't disagree on a point or two.
Hell, Michael Steele maybe isn't the worst thing for the Republicans, as at least he has his own ideas and isn't off in the ultra-right.

Hell, look at what Republican senators have been up to since the election. They have not tried to contribute, or change things... just sit around screaming NOOOOO like a bunch of brats. The lack of trying to find real fault with Obama and the Democrat's plans, and instead just shouting the same fucking shit over, it's fucking stupid. They are not doing their jobs as senators.

I do want a somewhat viable Republican party, as otherwise the Democrats will get extremely stupid and cocky.

Hell, this whole collapsing of the Republican party could just be part of a grand strategy of giving the Dems a power vacuum, who will then fuck it up, because they are stupid and human, and then revive their party. Doing even more damage to the country instead of trying to do something right, right now.

[Ox]

This boggles me... Powell's a guy who literally put his life on the line for the country and actually served for the country's sake, and seems to believe in putting the country first ahead of himself.

On the other hand... Cheney, Bush, Rush, Rumsfeld, etc. were chickenhawks who actively avoided military duty, put American soldiers in harm's way, and basically put party before country.
Oh, come fucking on. Ulysses S. Grant was a great general, personally courageous, honorable, and served his country at great personal risk. He was also a crappy President. Powell disagrees with Cheney, Bush, Rush, Rumsfeld, etc. on a number of important issues, both foreign and domestic. If you can't wrap your head around why that makes him an unattractive candidate, consider that Presidents rarely fight on the front lines.

Hell, look at what Republican senators have been up to since the election. They have not tried to contribute, or change things... just sit around screaming NOOOOO like a bunch of brats.
I like how you limit this to Republican Senators. Because regardless of what Republican party leaders do (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22056.html), unless one of those magical Senators comes to bless the proceedings, it's irrelevant?

Hell, this whole collapsing of the Republican party could just be part of a grand strategy of giving the Dems a power vacuum, who will then fuck it up, because they are stupid and human, and then revive their party. Doing even more damage to the country instead of trying to do something right, right now.
What, praytell, should Republicans do instead of waiting to win power again? Democrats control the White House, the House, and have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate when Franken takes office. Unless some Republican gets bitten by a radioactive spider, they cannot contribute to public policy until at least 2010.

[Ultima Thulian]

You know what we need?

Bull. Moose. Party. With Zombie Teddy Roosevelt at the helm. Yes please.

[Serapth]

If you can't wrap your head around why that makes him an unattractive candidate, consider that Presidents rarely fight on the front lines.

You gotta admit, there would be less war if they did!

[Ox]

On the contrary, I think there would be much more war. National leaders fight wars for many reasons, but one of them is personal glory. How much more glorious does it feel to ride out to crush the Whiskey Rebellion than to send troops thousands of miles away while you remain at home?

National leaders used to march at the heads of their armies: look at Alexander, or Rameses. Do you really want to argue that wars were less common in the Bronze Age than they are today?

[Serapth]

On the contrary, I think there would be much more war. National leaders fight wars for many reasons, but one of them is personal glory. How much more glorious does it feel to ride out to crush the Whiskey Rebellion than to send troops thousands of miles away while you remain at home?

National leaders used to march at the heads of their armies: look at Alexander, or Rameses. Do you really want to argue that wars were less common in the Bronze Age than they are today?

We are going way off topic here, but...

I think this is a case of history being far romantic than reality. Granted, leaders probably actually went to the battles unlike today, but that is as much a product of the lack of efficient communications than anything else. Besides, I think they fought from "the front" with the front being more or less "the back". Fodder and criminals fought at the front. The only possible exception I can think to this is when dealing with calvery and even then, I highly doubted leaders fought from the front.

Besides that point, do you think there actually exists another century in history with more wars than the 20th century? The individual battles of WWI and II probably outnumber all the battles fought by Alexander and Ramesses.

[Doogie2K]

Besides which, it bears pointing out that historically, military leaders have been country leaders by simple virtue of the fact that they controlled the troops.

[Ox]

I think this is a case of history being far romantic than reality. Granted, leaders probably actually went to the battles unlike today, but that is as much a product of the lack of efficient communications than anything else.
Sure, although I hardly see how that negates my point.
Besides, I think they fought from "the front" with the front being more or less "the back".
Judging from the number of historical leaders who died in battle or sustained serious wounds in battle, being a REMF must have been pretty dangerous. And as you say, poor communications basically mandated that the commander be as physically close to the battle as possible.

Besides that point, do you think there actually exists another century in history with more wars than the 20th century? The individual battles of WWI and II probably outnumber all the battles fought by Alexander and Ramesses.
Are we counting wars or battles? The improved supply lines and transportation were the primary factors in the increase in conflict intensity of the twentieth century. Mechanized agriculture and railways meant campaigns could last into the autumn and winter, you didn't have to spend months just getting to the battle zone, and larger populations meant there were more soldiers running about to run into each other. The Roman army could never have maintained the fronts the Germans did in the first World War; at a combined 2800 kilometers, the Roman army at its peak couldn't have stationed more than one legion every 56 kilometers (and the Roman borders were a great deal longer than that). That's an awful lot of front to cover -- just finding the enemy was a major challenge.

There were 165 (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm) wars or significant domestic disturbances in the twentieth century. I don't find it inconceivable that a similar or higher number of conflicts occured in a 100-year span in the Bronze Age, globally. This page (http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/16cen/16cenindex.html) lists 137 wars fought by European nations in the 16th century (admittedly, at a time when national leaders started staying home), and that doesn't include any of the wars that Asian or American nations fought against non-Europeans!

[Bandango]

They stills got maaad money.

[alienmastermind]

National leaders used to march at the heads of their armies: look at Alexander, or Rameses. Do you really want to argue that wars were less common in the Bronze Age than they are today?

Okay, Ox. But in Rameses day 'slingshot' and 'falling off of chariot' were still big ways of biting the big one. Alexander had to worry about swords, plague, and spears (did they have the Phalanx during Alexander's reign?).

Anyway, if we still fought on foot and horseback, and you got close enough to a man to smell his breath to kill him, I could see the wisdom in sending out a King or a Pharaoh along with the men as both a morale booster for your own side and a morale breaker for the other side.

But we have a President, whose Constitutional job description requires him to be a certain age, not a felon, and born in the U.S.. It doesn't talk about his cqc skillz. :)

Rush Limbaugh is your pick too, Ox? I'd like to see you rationalize putting someone who faked an injury to avoid the draft, was busted for illegal possession of prescription drugs, and apparently says things like:

"The phony soldiers." --on U.S. service members who support withdrawal from Iraq

"He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there, and he says to me in this ad, 'Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service.' You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into." -- In response to one of the vets' challenging him on this assertion.

Ox, I'm just sayin'...I'd rather see Colin Powell run than that guy.

Edit: Wow. Here's some more nuggets, by the by...

"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

He did say something I do agree with, however.

"They oughtta change Black History Month to Black Progress Month and start measuring it."

"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

If Imus is a racist for saying what he said, what does that make this guy?

[Ox]

Rush Limbaugh is your pick too, Ox?
Don't misquote me. I never said anything remotely like that.

[ElektroDragon]

If it weren't for Rush, those 20 million would probably have been brainwashed by the liberal media by now and we'd be living in the Socialist States of America. Long live Rush, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, even O'Reilly. It's the stupidity of the warmongering neo-cons (like Bush) and the religious right that has brought the Republican party to its knees. We need a new Reagan, and FAST. Unfortunately, most of the BEST minds in the Republican party don't have the glamour and showmanship of Obama to win over the feeble minds of the unwashed masses. Republicans definitely SHOULD NOT try to play nice and be moderate like Powell wants. (The Dems certainly never do). Then they'd just be Democrats Lite and the country will just accelerate on its collision course with disaster.

And anyone who think Rush will actually run for office is a complete ignoramus.

[Ultima Thulian]

If it weren't for Rush, those 20 million would probably have been brainwashed by the liberal media by now and we'd be living in the Socialist States of America. Long live Rush, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, even O'Reilly. It's the stupidity of the warmongering neo-cons (like Bush) and the religious right that has brought the Republican party to its knees. We need a new Reagan, and FAST. Unfortunately, most of the BEST minds in the Republican party don't have the glamour and showmanship of Obama to win over the feeble minds of the unwashed masses.

Oh man, big lulz are gonna ensue. I can smell it.

[Ink Asylum]

Nah. That kind of rhetoric is not worth engaging. Nothing good will come of it.

[alienmastermind]

Don't misquote me. I never said anything remotely like that.

Powell disagrees with Cheney, Bush, Rush, Rumsfeld, etc. on a number of important issues, both foreign and domestic. If you can't wrap your head around why that makes him an unattractive candidate, consider that Presidents rarely fight on the front lines.

I interpreted the above to mean you would endorse the group of men including Cheney, Bush, Rush and Rumsfeld being attractive candidates. Sorry to have misinterpreted what you said. I think that with a strong middle-ground guy at his side Cheney may have made a good President. But he's irascible and secretive, and reminds people of the Ford administration (not exactly a humdinger of a candidate)...but including Rush in that list stuck out like a sore thumb.

[sam36]

obama won simply because he is a good speaker. That is all. He got in by saying " yes yes yes" but now he says "no no no". It is the standard democrat approach. Most people know very little about how the government works or how the economy works, yet every one thinks they are smarter than the government.

How do you debate with someone that simply says "yes" to every request brought up by citizens? You could see in the debates where McCain started to modify his speaking to more mirror obama's. You just simply can't compete with the word "yes". But soon the people will be let down again and the tides will change. And then after the tides change, once again there will be a young generation unaware of the power of the "yes" word and once again a "yes" candidate will win the office, wash rinse, repeat.

[Ink Asylum]

Of course. That's the only rational reason Obama won.

Not Bush's disastrous administration and dismal approval ratings.
Not frustration with Republican rule.
Not Obama's unprecedented campaign apparatus.
Not American attitudes that were more in line with Democrats' party platform than Republicans'.
Not a Democratic Party resurgence growing since 2006.

It's all because Obama was a good speaker and said "yes" a lot.

[roboninja]

Nah. That kind of rhetoric is not worth engaging. Nothing good will come of it.

You are right, and that is why I rarely partake in P&R; I cannot help myself.

I just find it funny how Rush, Beck, Buchanon, and Gingrich are somehow separate from the warmongers and religious right, while they continually espouse the viewpoints of those groups. Are they undercover or something?

[torrefaction]

Besides that point, do you think there actually exists another century in history with more wars than the 20th century? The individual battles of WWI and II probably outnumber all the battles fought by Alexander and Ramesses.
[/quote]

I love the idea that people say conflict has increased.

The Dark Ages.
The Crusades.
Tribal Wars.

Very smart people (and then there's me) argue that we are living in the most peaceful times that have ever existed.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

The funny thing is, part of this is due to MAD.

If you don't like video.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2007/03/human_beings_ar/

It?s an unexpected theme for a talk that opens with a photo of
Auschwitz. But despite Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Rwanda, Darfur, and the war in Iraq, we are currently benefiting from a long and steady decline in human-on-human violence, a phenomenon that has been ongoing for 10,000 years but that experienced a tipping point during the Age of
Reason in the 16th century. "If the death rate of tribal warfare had prevailed in the 20th century, there would have been 2 billion deaths,"
Pinker says.

Even in the short-term, he adds, violence is on the wane. Since 1945, interstate wars are on the decline. Since the end of the Cold War, there have been fewer civil wars and genocides.

The mystery is why. Pinker throws out four plausible theories (One,
Hobbes was right; two, as suffering and death have decreased, life has come to seem more valuable; three, technology has led to an increase in
"non-zero-sum games," as theorized by my former Slate colleague Robert
Wright in "Nonzero," and four, as Princeton ethicist Peter Singer argues, we have seen an "expanding circle" of empathy in history.)

"We have been doing something right," Pinker concludes. "And it sure would be good to find out what it is."

[Ultima Thulian]

Of course. That's the only rational reason Obama won.

Not Bush's disastrous administration and dismal approval ratings.
Not frustration with Republican rule.
Not Obama's unprecedented campaign apparatus.
Not American attitudes that were more in line with Democrats' party platform than Republicans'.
Not a Democratic Party resurgence growing since 2006.

It's all because Obama was a good speaker and said "yes" a lot.

Don't waste your time. This guy was in another thread posting irrelevant Jesus bullshit. It was Ox's "Talking Points" thread. This dood is a lifer, you can't reason with his kind.

[Ink Asylum]

Yeah. I usually refrain from engaging that type of rhetoric, but this one was specific and easy enough to mock.

[Ultima Thulian]

Yeah. I usually refrain from engaging that type of rhetoric, but this one was specific and easy enough to mock.

I don't blame ya. Been there done that. :D

[Serapth]

I love the idea that people say conflict has increased.

The Dark Ages.
The Crusades.
Tribal Wars.

Very smart people (and then there's me) argue that we are living in the most peaceful times that have ever existed.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

The funny thing is, part of this is due to MAD.

If you don't like video.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2007/03/human_beings_ar/
[/quote]

There is no way in hell there was a decline in violence from say 1600 till the end of 2000. The scope of war in WWI and WWII was simply unfathomable to earlier generations. We may have less conflicts ( I doubt this as well ) but the scale of these conflicts is an order of magnitude higher than any way fought since the 1500s. This isn't mentioning "small" conflicts like Khmer rouge that wiped out 1/5th of Cambodia's population, genocide in Yugoslavia, various African wars... Hell, the biggest difference of our civility is we just simply stop labeling things as wars, but we have just as many if not more.

The only time period that comes close to the level of violence was probably the 18th century with the Seven Year War accounting for about 900-1,400,000 casualties, the American War of Independence with @ 40-60K deaths ( direct or indirect ) , The War of Spanish Succession ( 400K dead ).

Contrast that with World War 2 alone, with 70 million dead or even WW I with 8.5M *confirmed* dead.

Now, if you want to go further back to prove your point, thats... pointless, we simply don't have reliable enough records to prove anything, except perhaps in brief periods of civility like Romes peek, Greece' peek and perhaps Egypt and the height of the Byzantine Empire they simply didn't have accurate enough records, nor did they take accurate census.


Granted, from the days of Kane and Able, we have improved from a 50% mortality rate!

[Kagger]

Serapth, you are bouncing between NUMBER of wars fought and the amount of battles. Yes, there are more battles and the battles are more complex in the 20th century, but that doesn't meant there were not more wars fought in another 100 year period.

[sam36]

Of course. That's the only rational reason Obama won.

Not Bush's disastrous administration and dismal approval ratings.
Not frustration with Republican rule.
Not Obama's unprecedented campaign apparatus.
Not American attitudes that were more in line with Democrats' party platform than Republicans'.
Not a Democratic Party resurgence growing since 2006.

It's all because Obama was a good speaker and said "yes" a lot.

I am simply saying that it will flip again. You are being sarcastic. Yes all of that worked too. But none of that will pertain to the next election.

[Ink Asylum]

I am simply saying that it will flip again. You are being sarcastic. Yes all of that worked too. But none of that will pertain to the next election.

That's half of what you said. The other half was dismissing all of Obama's accomplishments in the 2008 election and the decisions of millions of voters was based purely, or even largely, on him giving good speeches.

[Serapth]

Serapth, you are bouncing between NUMBER of wars fought and the amount of battles. Yes, there are more battles and the battles are more complex in the 20th century, but that doesn't meant there were not more wars fought in another 100 year period.

I don't realy see that it matters. War is a fairly arbitrary label when looking back at history. As an example, the Hundred Years' War was actually a number of battles, no matter how L337 it was. (groan)

[torrefaction]

Contrast that with World War 2 alone, with 70 million dead or even WW I with 8.5M *confirmed* dead.

Now, if you want to go further back to prove your point, thats... pointless, we simply don't have reliable enough records to prove anything, except perhaps in brief periods of civility like Romes peek, Greece' peek and perhaps Egypt and the height of the Byzantine Empire they simply didn't have accurate enough records, nor did they take accurate census.


Granted, from the days of Kane and Able, we have improved from a 50% mortality rate!

It's very simple.

Conflict per capita.

[Serapth]

It's very simple.

Conflict per capita.

With completely inaccurate census information that argument is pretty weak.

[torrefaction]

With completely inaccurate census information that argument is pretty weak.

Did you watch the video?

[Serapth]

Did you watch the video?

I read the text, I thought it was an either/or thing.

[torrefaction]

I read the text, I thought it was an either/or thing.

Not at all, really.

[RandoM51]

The Republican party is just paying the long term cost for using fear as their platform in the short term. Oh, and would you look at that? It lasted just long enough for Bush and his cabinet.

[sam36]

http://i43.tinypic.com/j9625c.jpg

[violent]

Precious Lord, take my hand, Lead me on, let me stand,

Ask your Lord where my car keys are. I've been looking for them for days.

[Ghostbear]

Precious Lord, take my hand, Lead me on, let me stand,

What the hell?

[Ultima Thulian]

This shit is getting old.

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o110/ultima13/Funny%20Pics/1149558362379s.jpg

[Spockrocket]

My troll senses are tingling

[Serapth]

...another one bites the dust (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/06/24/ST2009062403065.html)

With Bobby Jindal apparently having the personality of a dead goat,
Sarah Palin being... well, Sarah Palin,
John McCain being 114 years old,
Rush being a dickhead,
now Mark Sanford pretty much self destructs his career.


Who exactly is going to be the presidential candidate in 2012???

[Ultima Thulian]

These Senators just can't keep their pants on, can they?

Presidential Candidate for 2012? Glenn Beck. :D

I'm kidding of course. Maybe Newt Gingrich? I doubt it though...the man has several skeletons in the closet. I mean, we got adultery, draft dodging, GOPAC, etc etc etc. The man is a sleazy piece of shit, but then again, that doesn't stop most politicians nor does it stop most people for voting for them.

[Generation ABXY]

Wait, how did Rush get up there? I can't think of a single person I know (apart from those on the left, but we all know those guys are batshit crazy anyway) who believed him to be a viable candidate.

As for 2012, you never know who will come out of the woodwork. I mean, how well known was Barack Obama before the 2008 election? Also, there's still Romney, Huckabee, etc. I'm not saying they are my picks, but plenty of people still support them.

Oh, and though this may indeed not turn out to be the end of his political career, I was sorry to hear about Sanford. I'll admit, I was one of those who was at least keeping an eye on him for 2012.

[Doogie2K]

Wait, how did Rush get up there? I can't think of a single person I know (apart from those on the left, but we all know those guys are batshit crazy anyway) who believed him to be a viable candidate.

As for 2012, you never know who will come out of the woodwork. I mean, how well known was Barack Obama before the 2008 election? Also, there's still Romney, Huckabee, etc. I'm not saying they are my picks, but plenty of people still support them.

Oh, and though this may indeed not turn out to be the end of his political career, I was sorry to hear about Sanford. I'll admit, I was one of those who was at least keeping an eye on him for 2012.

I remember hearing about Obama around 2004 when he ran for the Senate, back when I was reading the P&R equivalent on GameSpot. I have no idea why offhand, but that's when the name first came up.

[ShivaX]

Wait, how did Rush get up there? I can't think of a single person I know (apart from those on the left, but we all know those guys are batshit crazy anyway) who believed him to be a viable candidate.

As for 2012, you never know who will come out of the woodwork. I mean, how well known was Barack Obama before the 2008 election? Also, there's still Romney, Huckabee, etc. I'm not saying they are my picks, but plenty of people still support them.

Oh, and though this may indeed not turn out to be the end of his political career, I was sorry to hear about Sanford. I'll admit, I was one of those who was at least keeping an eye on him for 2012.

Huckabee might have a shot if he could get through the primaries. I disagree with him on almost every issue but at least hes smart and articulate. He also seems a pretty solid "practice what you preach" kind of guy who actually believes what hes saying and isn't going to be getting blowjobs in a public restroom or flying to a foreign country to fuck a woman other than his wife.