mnemonicj wrote:

phileysmiley wrote: Don't be ridiculous. You said "the Republicans seem to win a lot of elections." No reasonably intelligent human being would interpret that any way other than I said. What is less than a lot? How few elections would they have to win? 30? 20? 10? How about almost half? To me, that is a lot. I did not use the term incorrectly, your understanding of my statement was incorrect.

Dude, I'm not going to argue over semantics. It's very clear what your statement intended. Anyone who says "the reason why a lot of bla bla" is saying that "a lot" -- i.e., a large number, a significant amount, whatever -- is explained by whatever it is you're claiming. If I had absolutely no idea what the breakdown of Democrats vs. Republicans was in America, I would assume, as I think any intelligent person would, that Republicans "win out" over Democrats in American elections, based on that statement.

Let's submit it to an English professor and see what they say.

If I say, "the reason why a loit of people in America eat chocolate covered cockroaches is because they taste so good," you'd think I'm crazy. But I'm sure I could come up with a number that I can claim qualifies as "a lot." But I'd be twisting words and playing with numbers to back up my argument.

Bottom line: if what you say is true, then Republicans would be the majority party, and they're not. So they're doing something wrong, not right. And I'm sure "a lot of" Republicans would agree. If you lose the game you're doing something wrong and you'd better examine what it is that you're doing, not saying you're doing fine because although you lost, you scored "a lot" of points.

Wow... I'm done, but please continue arguing with yourself on how the words "a lot" mean "most".

mnemonicj wrote:

Wow... I'm done, but please continue arguing with yourself on how the words "a lot" mean "most".

So let's move on. What I'm asking is, if your explanation is correct, then why don't they win more than they do? Why are they not the majority party in the House, Senate, hold more Governor seats, etc.?

That's my point, in reaction to what you said earlier. But you keep skipping over my real point to debate semantics.

It's funny, most Republicans actually disagree with you. They are trying to figure out what they're doing wrong, since obviously Democrats win more elections and hold more seats. Even the leaders of "your" party are acknowledging that they're doing something wrong and are trying to figure out what they can do to improve it.

"Your" own party's leaders are willing to stand up and admit that something is wrong. You're not. Interesting.

phileysmiley wrote:

"Your" own party's leaders are willing to stand up and admit that something is wrong. You're not. Interesting.

Seriously, even Jim DeMint from my own state (one of the most Conservative Senators we've had in a while) has said the Republicans have been doing things wrong.

I don't agree with him on Palin, but all his talk about reforming surprised me for the Republican party - coming from him at least.

Say something enough a people will accept it as truth. Maybe people are no longer looking past the slander and are just accepting it as truth. Since the media portrays all of the Republicans as out-of-touch, old, racist, white men, as in this article, people will begin to believe them.

I don't believe for one second that all Republicans are all a bunch of out-of-touch, old, racist, white men, in fact I believe it is an out-and-out lie. I never said nothing was wrong with the Republican party, I would prefer to not vote for a Republican, but they are more in line with the beliefs I have than the Democrats. I wanted Ron Paul to be president because his beliefs line up the most closely with mine.

If the Republican party discontinues, I have no problem with that, as long as I have the chance to vote for someone that will support my beliefs, at least more than the Democrats. I don't agree with everything that the Republicans do and I can say I am not happy with Bush's job that he has done, but that doesn't give me hope that who I vote for will do a good job.

This article is pretty amusing. I'm sure most here will enjoy it as well.

I can't help but wonder today. What exactly would the reaction have been if Barack Obama had given an acceptance speech as light on policy and as full of platitudes as Senator McCain did? I mean honesty?

I can say with a lot of confidence that I don't think the response would have been very positive; from the public, pundits, or the media.

So after 4 days of this, and two major speeches neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin had any serious constructive plans for solving our problems...

Yeah... let's go vote for that!

Change we ... can ... wait, what was I talking about my friends?

Yeah it's all been smoke and mirrors to deflect any attention at all on the major issues facing the country. Globally discredited foreign policy (the two wars and more recently Georgia), the economy, healthcare funding and a host of other issues just aren't put on the table for discussion to give their supporters any idea of what their policies are.

McCain has the audacity to talk about change and also claims he knows how to capture Bin Laden...one would think he'd let the current Commander in Chief know that hey?

The republican party is bankrupt of any initiative and leadership and I have no doubt the vast majority of Americans are not fools, so those turkeys are putting a few well placed bullets in their own feet.

And I realize that this just may be an opinion article, but it seems to be a good analysis of McCain's speech. NY Times article