Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 183

Thread: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

  1. #31
    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
    Obviously. I mean, if the bill wasn't bad and they were trying to portray the opposing party as not being able to get anything done, then the Republicans would have had to stoop to spreading mistruths about the bill in order to sway public opinion on it. The Republicans would have had to say absurd things like it encouraged euthanasia, that it would force people to pay for other people's abortions, that tens of millions of Americans would lose their private insurance and that it would put America on a slippery slope towards Socialism. Since that clearly never happened, the Republicans were just pushing against an unpopular bill.
    Mistruths? Absurd things?

    Like, well, the Republicans citing a CBO letter to Nancy Pelosi estimating that 9 million people would likely lose their health insurance under Obamacare? See Table in that CBO letter and the +/- change in Employer and Nongroup/Other. Mistruths like that?

    Maybe you want to revise that last post now?

    Mistruth like the fact that the Hyde Amendment does not apply to Obamacare and which 12 pro-life Democrats opposed on that basis because Obamacare would permit federal funding for abortions?

    Care to revise that post now?

    I see, mistruths are those truths that you dislike and argue against your preferred policies...got it!

  2. #32
    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 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.
    Two excllent examples of the face of the GOP -LOL. Respond to Democrats much there Piyush ??
    “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. #33
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,952

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    There has to be the sensible group behind the party of "Yes We Can." Yeah we could, but it doesn't always mean we should. I would rather have someone say "no" before an out of touch party injects the country with a ravenous parasite called big government.

  4. #34
    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 Dav View Post
    When they don't try to stop the expansion of government, they are called out for it. When they do try to stop the expansion of government, they are the "Party of No". It's not like they can win here.

    Saying "No" would only hurt if they were saying no to things that, you know, people really want.
    The problem is that it does not appear that their Noism is soley rooted in attempting "stop the expansion of government".
    “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

  5. #35
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    Mistruths? Absurd things?

    Like, well, the Republicans citing a CBO letter to Nancy Pelosi estimating that 9 million people would likely lose their health insurance under Obamacare? See Table in that CBO letter and the +/- change in Employer and Nongroup/Other. Mistruths like that?
    Care to point out where in that letter it says that 9 million people will lose their insurance?

    Maybe you want to revise that last post now?
    I said tens of millions, which was what a lot of Republicans were claiming, not 9 million, but okay.

    Mistruth like the fact that the Hyde Amendment does not apply to Obamacare and which 12 pro-life Democrats opposed on that basis because Obamacare would permit federal funding for abortions?
    Funny how you forgot to mention that Obama signed an executive order that federal funds would not be used for abortions.

    Care to revise that post now?
    Care to post all the facts?

    I see, mistruths are those truths that you dislike and argue against your preferred policies...got it!
    Sorry, nothing you have said here as of yet shows that those mistruths the Republicans spread for months are any less mistruths.

  6. #36
    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 Conservative Sword View Post
    Mistruths? Absurd things?

    Like, well, the Republicans citing a CBO letter to Nancy Pelosi estimating that 9 million people would likely lose their health insurance under Obamacare? See Table in that CBO letter and the +/- change in Employer and Nongroup/Other. Mistruths like that?

    Maybe you want to revise that last post now?

    Mistruth like the fact that the Hyde Amendment does not apply to Obamacare and which 12 pro-life Democrats opposed on that basis because Obamacare would permit federal funding for abortions?

    Care to revise that post now?

    I see, mistruths are those truths that you dislike and argue against your preferred policies...got it!
    Speaking of mistruths why do you continue to state the big mistruth about the health insurance reform bill and the abortion lie ?
    “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

  7. #37
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by F107HyperSabr View Post
    Speaking of mistruths why do you continue to state the big mistruth about the health insurance reform bill and the abortion lie ?
    Because he doesn't actually know anything about the bill and its easier for him to parrot the GOP talking points than educate himself.

  8. #38
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    Mistruths? Absurd things?

    Like, well, the Republicans citing a CBO letter to Nancy Pelosi estimating that 9 million people would likely lose their health insurance under Obamacare? See Table in that CBO letter and the +/- change in Employer and Nongroup/Other. Mistruths like that?

    Maybe you want to revise that last post now?

    Mistruth like the fact that the Hyde Amendment does not apply to Obamacare and which 12 pro-life Democrats opposed on that basis because Obamacare would permit federal funding for abortions?

    Care to revise that post now?

    I see, mistruths are those truths that you dislike and argue against your preferred policies...got it!
    It looks like the 9 million mostly go to other forms sources of insurance, though it is not clear. The number of nonelderly insured goes up, the number of nonelderly uninsured goes down. 32 million more people are insured according to your supplied source. Since the decline does not start until 2014(2016 for employer insurance), I strongly believe that this simply means a shift in method of coverage.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #39
    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
    Care to point out where in that letter it says that 9 million people will lose their insurance?
    I already did...

    Table 2 - look at the +/- change in coverage for those covered via employed and the nongroup/other. One is -5 million and the other is -4 million. Meaning that, in total, the change for these two groups = -9 million. Get it?

    I said tens of millions, which was what a lot of Republicans were claiming, not 9 million, but okay.
    A lot of unnamed Republicans. Nonetheless, the estimate is only based on CBO's static scoring, i.e., nothing else changes. As CBO estimated, individual and family coverages will increase 10% - 17% under Obamacare. How many of those individuals and families seeing their insurance costs increase will forego insurance and pay the fine or purchase alternative cheaper coverage? Either way, they lose what they had despite Obama's promises. So you're niggling around the edges...the Republicans were far closer to accurate than Obama was. Obama saiud if we liked it we could keep it...that's was wrong according to the CBO.

    Funny how you forgot to mention that Obama signed an executive order that federal funds would not be used for abortions.
    Bwaahahahahaaaa!! Seriously?

    Now it's acceptable for Presidents to issue EOs enacting legislation? The EO is worthless. It cannot and does not change the fact that there are no provisions in the actual enacted legislation that prevents such abortion funding.

    Please explain, in detail, how the EO enacts law that was not passed via Congress and signed by the Pres?

    BTW - doesn't the fact that this EO was necessary kinda, you know, demonstrae that the enacted legislation did not, you know, prevent such funding?


    [quote]Care to post all the facts?[quote]

    This is rich coming from the guy claiming unnamed many Republicans said this or that and presenting as mainstream GOP opposition to the bill...

    And, I did post my facts...you going to?

    Sorry, nothing you have said here as of yet shows that those mistruths the Republicans spread for months are any less mistruths.
    I can't reason out of you what was not reasoned into you.

    What mistruths? Care to actually post, what did you call them...uh, facts, yeah, facts...wanna post some?

  10. #40
    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 Redress View Post
    It looks like the 9 million mostly go to other forms sources of insurance, though it is not clear. The number of nonelderly insured goes up, the number of nonelderly uninsured goes down. 32 million more people are insured according to your supplied source. Since the decline does not start until 2014(2016 for employer insurance), I strongly believe that this simply means a shift in method of coverage.
    Remember the context...

    Obama promised that if we like our current health insurance that we could keep it...

    That was what the GOP was pushing back against.

    How many times did Obama promise thaat we could keep our insurance if we liked it?

    I guess if you ignore that then you can argue that the GOP was just making a bad faith argument. But, unfortunately, facts are stingy things. And the fact here is that the GOP was pushing back against Obama's repeated promises despite the fact that Obama knew this was false.

Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •