Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 183

Thread: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

  1. #81
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    The point is BOTH sides are the party of no when they are in the minority. Exactly how is that so hard for you to understand?
    I would say I could probably agree with this statement. Folks, neither party is going to support policies of the other, usually because of the distinct ideological differences between the two. Why would a conservative support a liberal policy, or the other way around? Think about it rationally for a moment. When we are talking about opinions, and lets be honest here, when it comes to governing the country in the best way possible, ALL WE TALK ABOUT IS OPINIONS, both sides have their own belief systems, both of which are valid, to one degree or another.

    But anyway, I'm just here to see who gets the most rabid in posting on this thread. Gives me good information.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #82
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Sword View Post
    Of course it doesn't. It is CBO's estimate based on the legislation. CBO estimates that the legislation will cause a change in coverage for at least 9 million people...

    The GOP argued against Obama's repeated promises that we could keep our current plans. The CBO estimate justified the GOP's criticism. Hence, the criticism is not the alleged mistruth or absurd opposition as another poster claimed it was.



    No, you're inferring that. The CBO merely estimated the change in coverage.



    You're ignoring the discussion I was having.

    I was not presenting the CBO data to argue anything other than against another poster's comment that the GOP used mistruths and absurd complaints. I demonstrated that was false as this claim by the GOP was premised upon CBO estimates.

    You are here defending the legislation...whatever. That was not the discussion I was engaged in.

    Care to join the actual discussion about the legitimacy of that poster's actual comments or are you going to argue with yourself?
    The CBO link you provided does not show 1 person being forced to change insurance. It only shows people will change insurance for whatever reason. It does not show what you seem to think it does.
    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.

  3. #83
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    And this sentiment is also vastly insulting to the American people, that it is so easy to manipulate their opinions with lies. If you believe this, then you must truly despise democracy in any form.

    That's not even to mention that Republicans in Congress were in no position to have any effect on public opinion when most of the public disliked them in the first place. If you cannot accept that people came to hate the health care bill on their own accord, you can bring your hatred of democracy and the American public elsewhere.
    So you do not think that some people will be swayed by lies? Both sides have used them in this whole debate, and I think it is safe to say that the last nearly a year has been all about trying to gain support for or against health care reform.
    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.

  4. #84
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,725

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    If only they were the party of "no" under all cicumstances i could vote for them without holding my nose.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #85
    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
    The CBO link you provided does not show 1 person being forced to change insurance. It only shows people will change insurance for whatever reason. It does not show what you seem to think it does.
    ~Sheesh~ Why do you insist on palling around with straw men?

    I never did say that the table showed people being forced to change insurance. The thing is that you know that. I can understand you misunderstanding the first post I had when presenting this data. That happens. But when you continue to deliberately misinterpret my comments then that's on you and it's dishonest.

    How many times am I going to have to explain to you the context in which I cited that data? Before you address the actual arguement that I was presenting? Well?

    A poster claimed that the GOP was dealing in mistruths and absurdities regarding Obamacare and cited as an example the GOPs complaint about people having to change their insurance.

    I replied that there was nothing absurd about such a GOP argument because the CBO reported to Ms. Pelosi that some 9 million people were expected to have change coverage. I thusly provided the context for that particular complaint - Obama's repeated and consistent argument that under his plan if we liked our current coverage we would be able to keep it. That's what the GOP was pushing back against and they were doing so relying on CBO data.

    Now that is probably the fouirth timne I have explained to you my comment.

    You tried running that the table was unclear. No, the table is clear in that it presents the CBO's estimate that up to 9 million people covered under current employer or non-group plans would change coverage under Obamacare.

    You then tried to defend Obama on the grounds that the data didn't make clear where those people would change to which is irrelevant anyway as the argument was that unlike Obama's meaningless promise to the contrary, under Obamacare, people would change coverage.

    Then you tried arguing that the data does not demonstrate even one person having been forced off current coverage. Yet, I never presented the data as evidence of such.

    Why do you refuse to address the actual argument I made? Is it too difficult to grasp? Is it too difficult to argue against so you bring your pals strawman and red herring to the show?

    What is your problem?

  6. #86
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So you do not think that some people will be swayed by lies? Both sides have used them in this whole debate, and I think it is safe to say that the last nearly a year has been all about trying to gain support for or against health care reform.
    Only kool-aide drinkers are swayed by lies, and they would've had the opinion they had anyways without them.

    Considering how much less popular the GOP was than the Democrats before the debate started, it's amazing the public mostly sided with the former. That's not something that lies from people who swing voters don't even trust anyways is going to do. And once again, if people are that easy to manipulate, democracy just doesn't work and ought to be replaced.

  7. #87
    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
    So you do not think that some people will be swayed by lies? Both sides have used them in this whole debate, and I think it is safe to say that the last nearly a year has been all about trying to gain support for or against health care reform.
    If they have been swayed, which is mere supposition on your part, it's been because the Democrats failed miserably in presenting their plan to the public. Recall Pelosi stating that we'd have to vote for it before knowing what was in it and that we'd love it once it was enacted. Recall the backroom dealing, corporate and union bribes, etc. that perverted this process and kept it behind closed doors.

    One side was responsible for a public debate and despite repeated year long promises of transparency, public debate, and C-Span instead chose secret negotiations with pharma, insurers, unions...everyone except the Republicans. And when Obama did choose to include the GOP it was a made-for-tv stunt where the only intention was to talk to the GOP and lecture us commoners yet once more.

    In this context, I can understand why people were slinging inaccurate information. I can even excuse most righties for doing it. But the Democrats cannot be excused. They failed in their duty, their promises, and in doing so did us all a disservice by hiding this bill behind closed doors.

    Why do you think death panel ever became an issue? Because Obama's top guy, Tom Daschle, spoke of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research, included in the stimulus bill, as a tool for government to control the costs of care. He did this as priased Britain's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence that performs cost-benefit analysis to help determine what sorts of treatment the government will pay for, and for whom. NICE does, in fact, determine how much the government will spend to save a citizen's life...it's 15,000 pounds or $22,000. In that context, when Obama proposes the Independent Medicare Advisory Committee forn inclusionn in Obamacare and proposes that individuals receiving government-subsidized health insurance coverage should receive end-of-life counseling, what is so alarming about calling out the obvious?

    perhaps "death panel" was hyperbolic, but you people on the left wouldn't address the concern in any way. You attacked Palin as you did during the election. Which is typical. Take note that conservatives who oppose Obamacare are racists.

  8. #88
    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 Dav View Post
    Only kool-aide drinkers are swayed by lies, and they would've had the opinion they had anyways without them.

    Considering how much less popular the GOP was than the Democrats before the debate started, it's amazing the public mostly sided with the former. That's not something that lies from people who swing voters don't even trust anyways is going to do. And once again, if people are that easy to manipulate, democracy just doesn't work and ought to be replaced.
    Of course, for people like Redress, the fact that Obamacare started as a rather popular idea and then completely crashed is simply evidence that people have been lied to. People like Redress firmly believe that there are no legitimate, valid, or reasonable disagreements with their preferences. Rather, the people disagreeing with people like him are racist bigots, sexists, retards, ignorant, or gullible fools duped by the evil Fox News.

    And, yet, ironically, when he's mashing that submit button he doesn't reflect on how that might appear to the people he disagrees with, yet continues blasting us as foolish idiots duped and manipulated.

  9. #89
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Last Seen
    07-07-11 @ 02:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    406

    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.
    Newt is doing well to keep the party on track for proactive policy. But doing so still doesn't eliminate the power of the State sympathetic media. Through their effort the GOP will continue to look like 'the party of no'. As a registered Republican I will accept that moniker as the price of standing up against the most dangerous group of national leaders this nation has ever faced.

  10. #90
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I do not see what the big deal is. Do you vote for democrats just so they can vote for the same things that republicans vote for? If parties did not oppose each other then what would be the point of voting for a democrat,republican or some other party? I know I did not vote for my elected representatives just so they can vote for things I oppose and oppose the things I support. Living in SanFransicko I am sure you would not vote for a republican unless he was really liberal just so he can oppose the things you support and support the things you oppose.
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    … Folks, neither party is going to support policies of the other, usually because of the distinct ideological differences between the two. Why would a conservative support a liberal policy, or the other way around? Think about it rationally for a moment. When we are talking about opinions, and lets be honest here, when it comes to governing the country in the best way possible, ALL WE TALK ABOUT IS OPINIONS, both sides have their own belief systems, both of which are valid, to one degree or another. …
    ‘No’ is not an alternative, it's a dead end. Usually the opposition offers an alternative, something it would have the public understand is a better choice than that favored by the majority.

    But, not this Republican Party: it stands against change no matter what; it's the ‘Party of No Alternative’ and the ‘Party that Knows Nothing’ about American problems. It wants to achieve the “Do Nothing” congress and run for election on “Government is the problem” slogan and that's about all it really agrees on.

    Former Speaker Newt Gingrich actually tried to get conservatives to be a ‘Party of Yes’, to offer ideas and solutions for America's issues, but other speakers at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans rejected that moniker. Gov. Jindal and former Gov. Palin both endorsed ‘Party of No’ and really, the party deserves it for all the good they've achieved in this session of Congress.
    “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 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •