Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 183

Thread: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Providing for the general welfare and common defense.

    Next.
    Oh damn! You scorched me there!

    So, why did Thomas Jefferson want to amend the Constitution so as to allow for Federal funding of education if the "general welfare clause" already permitted him to do so? I guess you know the Constitution better than him...

    Let's see what Madison, the Father of the Constitution, has to say about it:

    The federal Government has been hitherto limited to the specified powers, by the Greatest Champions for Latitude in expounding those powers. If not only the means, but the objects are unlimited, the parchment had better be thrown into the fire at once.

    ...and...

    With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

    ...and...

    If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”
    So, you've been proven wrong. Care to revise your simplistic and intellectually dishonest position so that it properly reflects reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Obama didn't make companies choose to pay a penalty over providing coverage for their employees. That is the companies decision. Understand?
    They are basing that decision upon a piece of legislation that Obama supports. Absent the legislation, there would be no need to make such a "choice" (if you can really call it that). I know you don't want your messiah to take responsibility for anything he does, but some of us are less impressed by him than you are...

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Yeah, I thought conservatives were into personal responsibility. A company has a CHOICE, here. They may not like their choices, but it is their responsibility to decide what choice they make. No one else's.
    This is an utterly absurd and intellectually dishonest line of reasoning. They are being forced into a "choice" they would otherwise not have to make by Obama's bill. I guess if I put a gun to your head and said "give me your wallet or your daughter", you couldn't hold me responsible for your "choice". Same distorted logic you and CT are using.

    And let's not even start with this "personal responsibility" nonsense when the entire bill is nothing more than a giant handout for people who exercise virtually none of it.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Since the 1936 decision? Nope. You gotta problem with it, then pass a Federal Constitutional Amendment. After all, that is what you want everyone else to do to expand the Federal government's power right? Then why don't practice what you preach by using that method to decrease it?
    So, your position is nothing more than a shallow appeal to the SCOTUS (they've never been wrong, have they?)? I mistakenly thought you had some kind of intellectually-based argument to back your position. Silly me, expecting an extreme leftist to actually use reality and logic to frame an argument...

  3. #113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    And what the hell else are they supposed to do? They only have 40% in each house. As long as they and/or their constituents don't like what the Democrats are putting forwards, voting "no" on it is not a sin.

    If they take control of Congress and still don't offer anything, THEN I will be disappointed.
    Their sole purpose right now should be to oppose each and every plan the democrats put forth...to give them no quarter and to harass and harry every single movement Obama makes.

    When the election comes, their purpose should be to remind the country that they stood in blockade against Obama and Co. and then to take back the congress and, eventually, the presidency. Then they can start unraveling some of this mess and getting us back on track.

  4. #114
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by Gander View Post
    Oh damn! You scorched me there!

    So, why did Thomas Jefferson want to amend the Constitution so as to allow for Federal funding of education if the "general welfare clause" already permitted him to do so? I guess you know the Constitution better than him...

    Let's see what Madison, the Father of the Constitution, has to say about it:



    So, you've been proven wrong. Care to revise your simplistic and intellectually dishonest position so that it properly reflects reality?
    Wow, I've been proven wrong? And yet the health care law still exists, as does every other form of welfare that Congress has passed in the last 80 odd years. Interesting how that works. It's interesting how the reality doesn't match up to your ideology and views on the founding fathers. Also, why did ol' Thomas Jefferson do a 180 on his views of limiting the federal government when it was his turn to be president? And since when is Madison the "father of the Constitution"? As I recall, his signature wasn't the only one on the thing. I think you have built a pretty nice rosy perception of history to support your ideological beliefs, but it doesn't change the reality one little bit. Good luck on getting your Constitutional Amendment passed to limit the powers of the Federal Government.

    They are basing that decision upon a piece of legislation that Obama supports. Absent the legislation, there would be no need to make such a "choice" (if you can really call it that). I know you don't want your messiah to take responsibility for anything he does, but some of us are less impressed by him than you are...
    32 million more people covered and 9 million people who might have to change insurance because their employers would prefer to pay a penalty than look out for their well being. Hm...yup I think this is something Obama will have no problem taking responsibility for in the end.

  5. #115
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,439

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Providing for the general welfare and common defense.

    Next.
    If the founders meant for, "general welfare", to be interpretted that way, why didn't they immediately start entitlement programs? None of them even suggested that we create such programs. Why not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #116
    Student
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 12:27 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    159

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Since the 1936 decision? Nope. You gotta problem with it, then pass a Federal Constitutional Amendment. After all, that is what you want everyone else to do to expand the Federal government's power right? Then why don't practice what you preach by using that method to decrease it?
    You cannot be serious...

    I mean, I have seen blind fealty to the Supreme Court, but this takes the cake.

    Since when has the Court become the superior branch of government?

  7. #117
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    If the founders meant for, "general welfare", to be interpretted that way, why didn't they immediately start entitlement programs? None of them even suggested that we create such programs. Why not?
    Are you seriously asking why the founders, who lived during a time where the top medical treatments were leeches, blood letting, and amputation, did not start medical entitlement programs? Your logic is funny. Why didn't the founders free the slaves? Why didn't the founders give woman the right to vote? I guess we should go back on those advances simply because it wasn't the founders intended or did themselves.

  8. #118
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,439

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Are you seriously asking why the founders, who lived during a time where the top medical treatments were leeches, blood letting, and amputation, did not start medical entitlement programs? Your logic is funny. Why didn't the founders free the slaves? Why didn't the founders give woman the right to vote? I guess we should go back on those advances simply because it wasn't the founders intended or did themselves.
    Why wasn't a welfare program for the poor started? I'm not talking just about government run healthcare.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    04-13-10 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    240

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Wow, I've been proven wrong?
    Of course you have. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson have corrected your error and the error of the Supreme Court by speaking plain English. Here's another you might like...

    Our tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.
    --Thomas Jefferson


    And yet the health care law still exists, as does every other form of welfare that Congress has passed in the last 80 odd years. Interesting how that works. It's interesting how the reality doesn't match up to your ideology and views on the founding fathers.
    Yes, it is interesting, isn't it? That the Supreme Court would ignore the views of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson when interpreting the general welfare clause. How very interesting!

    Also, why did ol' Thomas Jefferson do a 180 on his views of limiting the federal government when it was his turn to be president?
    Be more specific. I don't recall him doing a "180 on his views of limiting the federal government" while President. He may have made specific exceptions to the giant body of his entire political philosophy, but he certainly didn't abandon it as you are implying.

    And since when is Madison the "father of the Constitution"? As I recall, his signature wasn't the only one on the thing. I think you have built a pretty nice rosy perception of history to support your ideological beliefs...
    No wonder you have such a silly view of the Constitution. You're ignorant of basic American political history.

    Madison was the principle author of the Constitution as well as the majority contributor to the Federalist Papers (ever hear of those?). That is why he's "The Father of the Constitution." He articulated and refined the basic legal framework of the document and our government. Read a history book, please.

    ...but it doesn't change the reality one little bit. Good luck on getting your Constitutional Amendment passed to limit the powers of the Federal Government.
    You went from "the SCOTUS says so!!!" to the "neener-neener-neener" argument. Impressive...

    32 million more people covered and 9 million people who might have to change insurance because their employers would prefer to pay a penalty than look out for their well being. Hm...yup I think this is something Obama will have no problem taking responsibility for in the end.
    Evil employers!!! Damned business owners with their giving people jobs!!! We must punish and demonize them!!! *mouth-foam*

    Fact remains, Obama is forcing people into a choice, which isn't really a choice at all. He lied to 9 million people when he said they could keep their insurance if they liked it. I'm sure the "party of no" will remind them of this in the upcoming elections...

  10. #120
    User
    Chappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,443
    Blog Entries
    26

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by Chappy View Post
    “We shouldn't just be the 'party of no,' we should be the 'party of hell no.'” — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal¹

    "There is no shame in being the 'party of no' if the other side proposes something that violates our Constitution and conscience.” — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin²

    The ‘Party of No’ seems to fit as far as I am concerned.
    I love it that this debate about the ‘Party of No’ was covered on NBC's Meet the Press however briefly. David Brooks identified himself as the party of ‘Maybe’ and Republican policy wonks like Rep. Paul Ryan as the ‘Party of Yes.’ He went on to say:

    “Palin. The Tea Parties. Listen, the Tea Party movement is a movement without a structure, without an organization. No movement like that lasts.” — David Brooks, Columnist, NBC's Meet the Press, 4/11/2010
    “Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001

Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •