Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 183

Thread: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

  1. #151
    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
    We know what "general welfare" and "common defense" mean.
    Apparently not. The court defined them as they are used now. The only way to get by that at this point is to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck.


    You're trying to use Thomas Paine's support of a small welfare program (not an "entitlement" program) to justify your support of massive expansion of Federal government and authority. Being adamantly opposed to centralized authority, I doubt he would have agreed with you.
    Small? If Paine's model were applied today it would be considered blatant socialism. You must have lied about reading it.

  2. #152
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Oh yeah, because that worked great when Bush tried it. The starving the beast method has yet to succeed so I don't know why conservatives keeping trying it.
    Has that been tried yet or is it still a favorite wet dream of SAY HEY NO KIDS ???
    “I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us “ f107HyperSabr

  3. #153
    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
    Small? If Paine's model were applied today it would be considered blatant socialism. You must have lied about reading it.
    No, I read it, and I didn't see anything in it which would justify massive entitlement spending funded via an income tax and sustained debt. If you think Thomas Paine's version of "welfare" is anything like what we have now, then you simply don't understand his philosophy on law and government.

  4. #154
    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
    No, I read it, and I didn't see anything in it which would justify massive entitlement spending funded via an income tax and sustained debt. If you think Thomas Paine's version of "welfare" is anything like what we have now, then you simply don't understand his philosophy on law and government.
    I only said, "welfare entitlement program". You are interjecting, "massive entitlement spending funded via an income tax and sustained debt". It is irrelevant to the statement I made and verging on intellectual dishonesty.

  5. #155
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by Chappy View Post
    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 Palin

    The ‘Party of No’ seems to fit as far as I am concerned.
    Given the argument, above, why would you expect anything -but- opposition?

    That is, what reason does the GOP have to support The Obama's policy/legislative agenda? Why -should- they?

  6. #156
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    How about defining what "general welfare" and "common defense" are suppose to mean so that they cannot be interpreted to mean anything else.
    The 16 clauses in Article I Section 8 that follow the first.

    Under the interpretation you support, there's no need for those clauses; that they -were- included invalidates said interpretation.

    A little critical thought on your part wou;d have lead you to the same conclusion.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 04-12-10 at 01:34 PM.

  7. #157
    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 Goobieman View Post
    Given the argument, above, why would you expect anything -but- opposition?

    That is, what reason does the GOP have to support The Obama's policy/legislative agenda? Why -should- they?
    There is always an opposition party and they inevitably vote ‘No’ a lot because they don't control the agenda and the majority is bound to bring things up for a vote that the minority opposes. But, rarely, if ever, in recent history, has a party so distinguished itself in its opposition to everything as this Republican Party has in this 111th session of Congress.

    The ‘Party of No’ moniker reflects not just a propensity to oppose things, but a determination to do so in just about all spheres of legislative activity. It really is unprecedented and it ill serves the nation in my opinion.
    “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

  8. #158
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by Chappy View Post
    There is always an opposition party and they inevitably vote ‘No’ a lot because they don't control the agenda and the majority is bound to bring things up for a vote that the minority opposes. But, rarely, if ever, in recent history, has a party so distinguished itself in its opposition to everything as this Republican Party has in this 111th session of Congress....It really is unprecedented and it ill serves the nation in my opinion
    Is this your perception, or do you have something to substantiate your statement?
    And, if true, how does that invalidate what I said?

    The Obama isnt offering anything the GOP, being the GOP, can support - what do you expect them to do other than vote no?

  9. #159
    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 Goobieman View Post
    Is this your perception, or do you have something to substantiate your statement?
    And, if true, how does that invalidate what I said?

    The Obama isnt offering anything the GOP, being the GOP, can support - what do you expect them to do other than vote no?



    *clicky*

    Here, I'll give you a for instance: Since 2007 the Senate Republicans have used the filibuster to delay, obstruct and kill more Senate action than at anytime in the Senate's post WWII history.

    Minority parties vote ‘No’ a lot this is true; but I can't think of any of them earning the ‘Party of No’ label and having its leadership being so proud of it. What we are seeing is a minority party that opposes legislative progress on just about everything; the message is they oppose progress period.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Chappy; 04-12-10 at 02:38 PM.
    “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

  10. #160
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by Chappy View Post
    Minority parties vote ‘No’ a lot this is true; but I can't think of any of them earning the ‘Party of No’ label and having its leadership being so proud of it.
    OK...how does that invalidate what I said?

    The Obama isnt offering anything the GOP, being the GOP, can support - what do you expect them to do other than vote no?
    What we are seeing is a minority party that opposes legislative progress on just about everything; the message is they oppose progress period.
    Only if you agree that the policy/legislative agenda of The Obama is actually "progress" - otherwise, what you see is oppositon to an agenda that isn't shared by those in the opposition.

    When the Dems opposed the GOP 1994-2006 were they also opposing progress?

Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... 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
  •