• 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'

Well Chappy, see how well it goes when you go with simply partisan bitching instead of talking about actual issues?

you mean like when you join a thread about Obama and you attack the author instead of the facts?

Yes Redress, we know all about you. :2wave:

We win on the issues, let's leave the mindless mud slinging for the other guys.

LOL Have you even looked at a poll on heath care? Ever?

Welcome to the selective memory of Redress. Please leave common sense at the door.
 
It was exceptionally clear that I was referring to the contemporary disrespect and disregard for constitutional concepts like checks and balances.

You deliberately misinterpreted what I said to suggest I was saying the entire history of our form of government was a disaster...

Forgive me, I thought you were referring to the 1803 decision of Marbury versus Madison which greatly expanded the power of the judicial branch by granting them judicial review and thereby allowing many of the court decisions you seemed to be citing. It is a typical conservative argument. I guess I overestimated you.
 
Fox News is the most watched News Network in the country. Try again kiddo.

Doesn't change the fact that most Americans don't watch Fox.

Yup, our form of government is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Or maybe, just maybe, bringing up democracy is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with our form of government. We should probably ponder that for a moment.

I don't dislike people. I just find them predictable.

You are arguing (if you want to call it that) in circles. If you think the people are stupid and easy to manipulate, they should not be deciding who gets to be in the government, period.
 
Forgive me, I thought you were referring to the 1803 decision of Marbury versus Madison which greatly expanded the power of the judicial branch by granting them judicial review and thereby allowing many of the court decisions you seemed to be citing. It is a typical conservative argument. I guess I overestimated you.

One, my comment cited Roe, Kelo, and Hamdan. Not sure how you get to Marbury.

Two, if Marbury is responsible for Roe, why did it take a hundred years for the Court to fully exercise that new role? Answer - Marbury ain't the source of Roe.

Three, while the Marbury Court could plausibly carbe out a review role for itself, the Roe Court went further by inventing rights out of thin air, errr, out of the shadows of the amendments.

Again, not sure how citing contemporary issues reflecting the disrespect of certain constitutional concepts gets you to me concluding the entire histry of the government is a failure or even back to Marbury.
 
Tex, before you start shooting your uninformed mouth off, you might want to actually check the statistics.

LOL This should be good.

The Republicans in minority have nearly doubled the highest total than the Democrats in minority.

Where is your source?


And of course that is only votes. You guys filibustered the hell out of judges.

List of stalled, blocked or filibustered nominees

* United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
o Rhode Island seat vacated by Bruce M. Selya - William E. Smith (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee O. Rogeriee Thompson)

* United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
o New York seat vacated by John M. Walker, Jr. - Debra Ann Livingston (Livingston was nominated by President Bush in June 2006 but not allowed to be confirmed by Senate Democrats until May 2007)
o New York seat vacated by Chester J. Straub - Loretta A. Preska (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Gerard E. Lynch)

* United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
o New Jersey seat vacated by Samuel Alito - Shalom D. Stone (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.)
o Pennsylvania seat vacated by Franklin Stuart Van Antwerpen - Gene E. K. Pratter, followed by Paul S. Diamond (judgeship still open)

* United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
o Maryland seat vacated by Francis D. Murnaghan, Jr. - Claude Allen, followed by Rod J. Rosenstein (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Andre M. Davis)
o North Carolina seat vacated by James Dickson Phillips, Jr. - Terrence Boyle, followed by Robert J. Conrad (Boyle was nominated by President Bush in May 2001. After waiting six years, President Bush withdrew his nomination January 2007, making this 2001-2007 nomination the longest court of appeals nomination never processed by the Senate; Robert Conrad was nominated July 2007, but the Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress; judgeship still open)
o South Carolina seat vacated by William Walter Wilkins - Steve A. Matthews (judgeship still open)
o Virginia seat vacated by H. Emory Widener - William J. Haynes, II, followed by E. Duncan Getchell, followed by Glen E. Conrad (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee Barbara Milano Keenan)

* United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
o Mississippi seat, converted from a Louisiana seat vacated by Henry Anthony Politz - Charles W. Pickering, followed by Michael B. Wallace, followed by Leslie H. Southwick (Pickering was filibustered by Senate Democrats and eventually withdrew his nomination; there was so much Democratic resistance to Wallace's nomination that it too was withdrawn; and Southwick was only confirmed due to the efforts of Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein)
o Texas seat vacated by William Lockhart Garwood - Priscilla Owen (Owen was filibustered by Senate Democrats and only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)

* United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
o Michigan seat vacated by James L. Ryan - Henry Saad, followed by Raymond Kethledge (Saad was filibustered by Senate Democrats; Kethledge was only confirmed after a deal in which failed Clinton nominee Helene White was allowed to replace Bush nominee Stephen J. Murphy III as a Sixth Circuit nominee)
o Michigan seat vacated by Richard Suhrheinrich - David W. McKeague (McKeague was filibustered by Senate Democrats and only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
o Michigan seat vacated by Damon Keith - Richard Allen Griffin (Griffin was filibustered by Senate Democrats and only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
o Michigan seat vacated by Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy - Susan Bieke Neilson, followed by Stephen J. Murphy III, followed by failed Clinton nominee Helene White (Bieke was only confirmed three months prior to her death after a four year battle over her nomination; Murphy's nomination was replaced by that of failed Clinton nominee Helene White at the behest of Democratic Michigan senator Carl Levin)
o Ohio seat vacated by David Aldrich Nelson - Jeffrey S. Sutton (Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the Democrat-controlled 107th Congress and he was only confirmed once Republicans assumed control of the house in 2003)
o Ohio seat vacated by Alan Norris - Deborah L. Cook (Senate Democrats refused to process her nomination during the Democrat-controlled 107th Congress and she was only confirmed once Republicans assumed control of the house in 2003)

* United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
o Indiana seat vacated by Kenneth F. Ripple - Philip P. Simon (judgeship later filled by Obama nominee David Hamilton)

* United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
o California seat vacated by James R. Browning - Carolyn Kuhl (Kuhl was filibustered by Senate Democrats and eventually withdrew her nomination; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Sandra Segal Ikuta)
o California seat vacated by Stephen S. Trott - N. Randy Smith (judgeship still open; Smith was later confirmed to the Ninth Circuit when he was renominated for an Idaho seat)
o Idaho seat vacated by Thomas G. Nelson - William Gerry Myers III (Myers was filibustered by Senate Democrats; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee N. Randy Smith)

* United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
o Oklahoma seat vacated by Stephanie Kulp Seymour - James H. Payne, followed by Jerome A. Holmes (Payne withdrew his nomination after allegations made by liberal organizations created the appearance of "extraordinary circumstances" which would not have allowed his confirmation under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Jerome A. Holmes)

* United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
o Alabama seat vacated by Emmett Ripley Cox - William H. Steele, followed by William H. Pryor (Senate Democrats refused to process Steele's nomination during the Democrat-controlled 107th Congress and his nomination was withdrawn; Pryor was filibustered by Senate Democrats and was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)

* United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
o Miguel Estrada, to seat vacated by Patricia Wald (Estrada was nominated May 2001, but was filibustered by Senate Democrats and withdrew his nomination after waiting over two years in September 2003; judgeship later filled by Bush nominee Thomas B. Griffith, who was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
o John Roberts, to seat vacated by James L. Buckley (Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the Democrat-controlled 107th Congress and he was only confirmed once Republicans assumed control of the Senate in 2003)
o Janice Rogers Brown, to seat vacated by Stephen F. Williams (Brown was filibustered by Senate Democrats and was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
o Brett Kavanaugh, to seat vacated by Laurence Silberman (Kavanaugh was initially stalled by Senate Democrats and was only allowed to be confirmed under the terms of the Gang of 14 Deal)
o Peter Keisler, to seat vacated by John Roberts (President Bush nominated him June 2006, but Senate Democrats refused to process his nomination during the 109th and Democrat-controlled 110th Congress; judgeship still open)


George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you have the audacity to call yourself "critical thought"

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?
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
If only they were the party of "no" under all cicumstances i could vote for them without holding my nose. :shrug:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
“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.
 
“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.

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.

… 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.
 
‘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.

You are a liar!

Why do you people insist on lying about this?

I mean, how could Republican ideas be included in Obamacare if the Republicans were not proposing anything?

You are liars!
 
I mean, how could Republican ideas be included in Obamacare if the Republicans were not proposing anything?

You are liars!

Apparently you forgot the little meeting that Obama had with the Republicans before this bill was passed. He listened to their ideas and a couple of them actually made it into the legislation.
 
Oh, I forgot, that's right, the Republican did offer an alternative to passing the health care reform bill, “Let's throw this bill away and start all over again!” Forgive me, if I don't see the distinction between “start all over again” and ‘No Alternative,’ the effect is the same.
 
‘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.
WWWHAAAAAT?!! You expect over the last few years the GOP can achieve any sort of participation that doesn't involve rolling over to the Democrats?!!?

That is laughable!?!
 
Apparently you forgot the little meeting that Obama had with the Republicans before this bill was passed. He listened to their ideas and a couple of them actually made it into the legislation.

No ****...soooo, it begs the question...how can posters here argue that the GOP came to the table with nothing, hence, making it the Party of No?

Well?

Does common sense run through these posters or what?
 
Oh, I forgot, that's right, the Republican did offer an alternative to passing the health care reform bill, “Let's throw this bill away and start all over again!” Forgive me, if I don't see the distinction between “start all over again” and ‘No Alternative,’ the effect is the same.

You're still lying. Why?

Well?
 
No ****...soooo, it begs the question...how can posters here argue that the GOP came to the table with nothing, hence, making it the Party of No?

Well?

Does common sense run through these posters or what?

Sigh, there is no reasoning with you kid.
 
Sigh, there is no reasoning with you kid.

Dude, you can't reason out what was never reasoned in. You and others need to believe that the GOP is the party of No and so you run with it unceasingly. On the other hand, you'll also argue that some GOP ideas were included in Obamacare.

You do see the incompatibility of these two positions, right?

Therefore, there is no reason or logic in your party of no argument.

You're finished.

End of story.

Dismissed.
 
“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.

Yea, just like a rape victim is "Miss No".
 
Back
Top Bottom