• 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'

GhostlyJoe said:
Some of us don't live in a world of ideological extremes.
Click to expand...

Then you're fooling yourself. Or you're being dishonest.

Most people simply don't put on a blindfold and then throw a dart at the wall and select their political ideology. Most people identify with an ideology that fits best with their personal preferences.
 
Dav said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Chappy said:
“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.
Click to expand...

Two excllent examples of the face of the GOP -LOL. Respond to Democrats much there Piyush ??
 
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.
 
Dav said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it does not appear that their Noism is soley rooted in attempting "stop the expansion of government".
 
Conservative Sword said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

Care to post all the facts?

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

Sorry, nothing you have said here as of yet shows that those mistruths the Republicans spread for months are any less mistruths.
 
Conservative Sword said:
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!
Click to expand...

Speaking of mistruths why do you continue to state the big mistruth about the health insurance reform bill and the abortion lie ?
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Speaking of mistruths why do you continue to state the big mistruth about the health insurance reform bill and the abortion lie ?
Click to expand...

Because he doesn't actually know anything about the bill and its easier for him to parrot the GOP talking points than educate himself.
 
Conservative Sword said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
CriticalThought said:
Care to point out where in that letter it says that 9 million people will lose their insurance?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?


Care to post all the facts?
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Speaking of mistruths why do you continue to state the big mistruth about the health insurance reform bill and the abortion lie ?
Click to expand...

What abortion lie?

Are you going to argue that the Hyde Amendment applied to Obamacare? No? Ok.

So, what provision(s) in the Obamacare bill prevented federal funding for abortion?

I mean, I don't mean to be, uh, factual or anything, but why did 12 Democrats oppose Obamacare prior to the issuance of an EO which alleges to amend the enacted legislation if such provisions preventing fed funding for abortions were in the legislation?

Help me out here...
 
Conservative Sword said:
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?
Click to expand...

The only reason some people will lose coverage is because some of the companies will choose to pay the penalty rather than cover their employees. How is that Obama's fault?
 
Conservative Sword said:
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.
Click to expand...

The table is unclear, but some things to remember. The population is still I believe aging, so some of those will move into Medicaid and CHIP, some employers will move over time to other sources of insurance(this happens now, my employer has changed sources of insurance twice during my tenure there). Some may choose a different source of insurance. It does not necessarily mean that people are going to be forced out of their health plan. Again, the table is not clear, so neither you nor I can judge based on that data.
 
Chappy said:
“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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Conservative Sword said:
What abortion lie?

Are you going to argue that the Hyde Amendment applied to Obamacare? No? Ok.

So, what provision(s) in the Obamacare bill prevented federal funding for abortion?

I mean, I don't mean to be, uh, factual or anything, but why did 12 Democrats oppose Obamacare prior to the issuance of an EO which alleges to amend the enacted legislation if such provisions preventing fed funding for abortions were in the legislation?

Help me out here...
Click to expand...

Some very good reading on the abortion question. The Abortion Issue | FactCheck.org
 
Redress said:
The table is unclear,
Click to expand...

No. It is clear.

9 million with employer coverage and non-group or other coverage will lose that coverage according to the CBO.

What's not clear?

That was absurd, Redress, claiming it was not clear. CBO's analysis said 9 million lose their coverage. I don't know how that could be unclear.

The population is still I believe aging, so some of those will move into Medicaid and CHIP, some employers will move over time to other sources of insurance(this happens now, my employer has changed sources of insurance twice during my tenure there). Some may choose a different source of insurance. It does not necessarily mean that people are going to be forced out of their health plan.
Click to expand...

Forced or otherwise is irrelevant.

Obama promised repeatedly that we could keep our current coverage, no?

That is what the GOP was pushing back against.

Again, the table is not clear, so neither you nor I can judge based on that data.
Click to expand...

No, it is clear. This is such a weak argument you're presenting. It ignores the entire debate on this point about maintaining your current coverage and it seems to obfuscate clear data to defend Obama on this repeated promise of his.
 
Conservative Sword said:
No. It is clear.

9 million with employer coverage and non-group or other coverage will lose that coverage according to the CBO.

What's not clear?

That was absurd, Redress, claiming it was not clear. CBO's analysis said 9 million lose their coverage. I don't know how that could be unclear.



Forced or otherwise is irrelevant.

Obama promised repeatedly that we could keep our current coverage, no?

That is what the GOP was pushing back against.



No, it is clear. This is such a weak argument you're presenting. It ignores the entire debate on this point about maintaining your current coverage and it seems to obfuscate clear data to defend Obama on this repeated promise of his.
Click to expand...

The table does not show any one forced out of their insurance. It shows the types of coverages shifting. One example is people leaving the workforce and going on Medicaid. I believe small employers are a growing employer, and those are less likely to offer insurance. You are interpreting it one way, without any actual backing evidence, and not noticing that the total insured is going up, rapidly, as is the total percentage insured.
 
Redress said:
Some very good reading on the abortion question. The Abortion Issue | FactCheck.org
Click to expand...

Good reading...yes.

Doesn't change the fact that the EO, which wouldn't have been necessary if Obamacare actually prevent such funding, cannot enact legislation that Congress failed to enact...specifically, funding appropriations for the CHCs bypass the Labor/HHS budget which is affected by the Hyde Amendment and are appropriated into a new CHC fund.
 
Conservative Sword said:
What abortion lie?

Are you going to argue that the Hyde Amendment applied to Obamacare? No? Ok.

So, what provision(s) in the Obamacare bill prevented federal funding for abortion?

I mean, I don't mean to be, uh, factual or anything, but why did 12 Democrats oppose Obamacare prior to the issuance of an EO which alleges to amend the enacted legislation if such provisions preventing fed funding for abortions were in the legislation?

Help me out here...
Click to expand...

There does not need to be any "provision" to restrict abortion coverage since none is afforded. You rant becomes moot.
 
Redress said:
The table does not show any one forced out of their insurance
Click to expand...

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.

It shows the types of coverages shifting.
Click to expand...

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

One example is people leaving the workforce and going on Medicaid. I believe small employers are a growing employer, and those are less likely to offer insurance. You are interpreting it one way, without any actual backing evidence, and not noticing that the total insured is going up, rapidly, as is the total percentage insured.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom