• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
“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.

Excerpted from “Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'” By UPI, Published: April 9, 2010 at 8:40 PM
[SIZE="+2"]A[/SIZE]fter Gingrich urged attendees Thursday to drop the antithesis "party of no" label by focusing on their own ideas rather than reacting to Democratic ideas, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal Friday distanced themselves from the former House Speaker, saying their party shouldn't apologize for the moniker, The Hill reported. …
 
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.
 
When they don't try to stop the expansion of government, they are called out for it. …
They could take up Newt Gingrich's advice and really stand up for something; right now they just sit down in opposition to everything.
 
Last edited:
“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.

If that's the case, then what are the Republicans for once they get into office?
 
They could take up Newt Gingrich's advice and really stand up for something; right now they just sit down in opposition to everything.

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.
 
If that's the case, then what are the Republicans for once they get into office?

Hopefully, less government. Democrats are fond of mocking Republicans for not being the "Party of No" when it comes to over-spending.
 
Being a "party of No" makes sense when you can't offer valid alternative solutions to real problems and you have to rely on your ideology just to survive. I don't care if the Republicans always stay as the "party of No" because even if the Dems can't offer perfect solutions, they at least have something to offer.
 
“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.

And it fit when Bush was in office for you guys.

This really is pathetic. You really think that conservatives are going to say yes to liberal ideas and vise versa?

Stupidity doesn't even begin to describe this tactic.
 
Being a "party of No" makes sense when you can't offer valid alternative solutions to real problems and you have to rely on your ideology just to survive. I don't care if the Republicans always stay as the "party of No" because even if the Dems can't offer perfect solutions, they at least have something to offer.

Oh spare us.

The liberals were the party of "No" in the 90s when the Republicans ran Congress and when Bush was in office.

This really is by far some of the dumbest selective memory you liberals have ever tried to employ.
 
Preposterous hyperpartisan BS.

You call them "the party of No" when they oppose YOUR agenda. Well big shock... mostly they don't agree with your agenda! Duh!

Saying No to gov't expansion is not a bad thing in many people's eyes, sorry.
 
Well Chappy, see how well it goes when you go with simply partisan bitching instead of talking about actual issues? We win on the issues, let's leave the mindless mud slinging for the other guys.
 
Preposterous hyperpartisan BS.

You call them "the party of No" when they oppose YOUR agenda. Well big shock... mostly they don't agree with your agenda! Duh!

Saying No to gov't expansion is not a bad thing in many people's eyes, sorry.

They had a chance to be involved. Alot of their own ideas were in the damn bill. Its a tactic to get re-elected, nothing more. If you bog down the governing party, it makes people think they can't get anything done, and boom you get elected to be supposedly better. IT was a strategy developed by the Republicans during the Clinton administration.
 
And it fit when Bush was in office for you guys.

This really is pathetic. You really think that conservatives are going to say yes to liberal ideas and vise versa?

Stupidity doesn't even begin to describe this tactic.

Some of us don't live in a world of ideological extremes.
 
Last edited:
Oh spare us.

The liberals were the party of "No" in the 90s when the Republicans ran Congress and when Bush was in office.

This really is by far some of the dumbest selective memory you liberals have ever tried to employ.

Tex, before you start shooting your uninformed mouth off, you might want to actually check the statistics.
The frequency of filibusters – plus threats to use them – are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture. Such votes test the majority's ability to hold together 60 members to break a filibuster.

In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, with Republicans in the minority, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the current session of Congress – the 111th – for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 the number already exceeds 40. The most the filibuster has been used when Democrats were in the minority was 58 times in the 106th Congress of 1999-2000

The Republicans in minority have nearly doubled the highest total than the Democrats in minority.
 
Last edited:
Well Chappy, see how well it goes when you go with simply partisan bitching instead of talking about actual issues? We win on the issues, let's leave the mindless mud slinging for the other guys.

Nonsense! I'm in agreement with Palin and Jindal and the conservative regulars are with Gingrinch. Clearly our local right wingers haven't gotten the latest talking points from headquarters.
 
They had a chance to be involved. Alot of their own ideas were in the damn bill. Its a tactic to get re-elected, nothing more. If you bog down the governing party, it makes people think they can't get anything done, and boom you get elected to be supposedly better. IT was a strategy developed by the Republicans during the Clinton administration.

Oh please. The bill has been passed, and the Dems are no better off for it. In fact they might even be worse off.

Do you honestly believe that Republicans in Congress personally liked the bill, and only voted against it because stopping it from passing would help them, which isn't even true?
 
Oh please. The bill has been passed, and the Dems are no better off for it. In fact they might even be worse off.

Do you honestly believe that Republicans in Congress personally liked the bill, and only voted against it because stopping it from passing would help them, which isn't even true?

Can I suspect that if they had liked it, they still would have voted no?
 
Can I suspect that if they had liked it, they still would have voted no?

You do have a point, and that would probably be true with many of them. But NOT so that they could then portray the opposing party of not being able to get anything done; and frankly it is insulting to America as a whole to say that voters would fall for such an obvious tactic. If they liked the bill and voted against it, it would be because it was an unpopular bill and they would've personally (as opposed to collectively as a party) gotten voted out if they had voted for it.
 
“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.

Well, of course, because to people like you there are no principled disagreements with you. Your opponents are always racist bigots, mysognists, sexists, fearmongers.

I would hope that you also would want a political minority to become the party of no when what is being proposed violates the Constitution.

Then again, maybe not. At least not when it is your preferences that are being imposed, right?
 
They could take up Newt Gingrich's advice and really stand up for something; right now they just sit down in opposition to everything.

Liar. And the worst part is...that you know you are lying.

So why are you lying? Do you think it's a legitimate argument? Or are you ignorant but pass off such statements as facts? Either way, you're lying.
 
You do have a point, and that would probably be true with many of them. But NOT so that they could then portray the opposing party of not being able to get anything done; and frankly it is insulting to America as a whole to say that voters would fall for such an obvious tactic. If they liked the bill and voted against it, it would be because it was an unpopular bill and they would've personally (as opposed to collectively as a party) gotten voted out if they had voted for it.

I am not sure if I agree with that, but it is just speculation, so probably best to let it go. I will just go back to my original comment which is calling them names is petty and makes us look bad.
 
Being a "party of No" makes sense when you can't offer valid alternative solutions to real problems and you have to rely on your ideology just to survive. I don't care if the Republicans always stay as the "party of No" because even if the Dems can't offer perfect solutions, they at least have something to offer.

LMAO!!!

As if you would accept anything other than your preference as "valid." So now we know that you argue in bad faith.

Pretending that the GOP does not propose alternatives is silly, but it fits well with your intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, and so you cannot whine that I am simply name-calling...see Paul Ryan's alternative proposals to Obamacare. End of story.
 
So I am unclear, do you join me, Palin and Jindal in supporting the “Party of No” moniker or not?
 
Back
Top Bottom