Some Republicans embrace 'Party of No'

Jetboogieman said:

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.

Click to expand...

Republican constituencies don't want what you're offering. How hard is that to understand!?

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...

So, were you at all bothered by the left's behavior? Or will you honestly try to say they didn't do anything wrong?

CriticalThought said:

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?

Click to expand...

This is Obama's bill. That's why he's responsible for it. Understand!?

Too bad people cannot say no to voting for these dummies.

CriticalThought said:

Actually, I'm pretty happy with this thing called a Constitutional Republic. You should look it up. It's an astonishing form of government. It has checks and balances meant to protect the rights of the individual from being trampled by the tyranny of the majority. I think you might even know of a country that has one.

Click to expand...

Where is this "Constitutional Republic" you speak of? You know, the one that abides by the Constitution and not some bizarre statist interpretation...

Can you cite the specific power which allows the Federal government to impose mandates on healthcare or appropriate money for healthcare?

Why did Thomas Jefferson want to Amend the Constitution so as to allow for Federal funding of education if the general welfare clause already permitted him to do so?

Really, I'd love to discuss the Constitution with you. Have you even read it?

Gander said:

Can you cite the specific power which allows the Federal government to impose mandates on healthcare or appropriate money for healthcare?

Click to expand...

Providing for the general welfare and common defense.

Next.

Gander said:

This is Obama's bill. That's why he's responsible for it. Understand!?

Click to expand...

Obama didn't make companies choose to pay a penalty over providing coverage for their employees. That is the companies decision. Understand?

CriticalThought said:

Obama didn't make companies choose to pay a penalty over providing coverage for their employees. That is the companies decision. Understand?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought conservatives were into personal responsibility. A company has a CHOICE, here. They may not like their choices, but it is their responsibility to decide what choice they make. No one else's.

CriticalThought said:

Providing for the general welfare and common defense.

Next.

Click to expand...

Profound.

So there's no limit to federal power.

And that phrase general welfare has got to be one of the most abused phrases throughout the Constitution. Contorted to mean whatever some need it to to impose their will.

And, yet, some people have the audacity to state they respect the Constitution...

Conservative Sword said:

Profound.

So there's no limit to federal power.

Click to expand...

Since the 1936 decision? Nope. You gotta problem with it, then pass a Federal Constitutional Amendment. After all, that is what you want everyone else to do to expand the Federal government's power right? Then why don't practice what you preach by using that method to decrease it?

CriticalThought said:

Providing for the general welfare and common defense.

Next.

Click to expand...

Oh damn! You scorched me there!

So, why did Thomas Jefferson want to amend the Constitution so as to allow for Federal funding of education if the "general welfare clause" already permitted him to do so? I guess you know the Constitution better than him...:roll:

Let's see what Madison, the Father of the Constitution, has to say about it:

The federal Government has been hitherto limited to the specified powers, by the Greatest Champions for Latitude in expounding those powers. If not only the means, but the objects are unlimited, the parchment had better be thrown into the fire at once.

...and...

With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

...and...

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

Click to expand...

So, you've been proven wrong. Care to revise your simplistic and intellectually dishonest position so that it properly reflects reality?

CriticalThought said:

Obama didn't make companies choose to pay a penalty over providing coverage for their employees. That is the companies decision. Understand?

Click to expand...

They are basing that decision upon a piece of legislation that Obama supports. Absent the legislation, there would be no need to make such a "choice" (if you can really call it that). I know you don't want your messiah to take responsibility for anything he does, but some of us are less impressed by him than you are...

CaptainCourtesy said:

Yeah, I thought conservatives were into personal responsibility. A company has a CHOICE, here. They may not like their choices, but it is their responsibility to decide what choice they make. No one else's.

Click to expand...

This is an utterly absurd and intellectually dishonest line of reasoning. They are being forced into a "choice" they would otherwise not have to make by Obama's bill. I guess if I put a gun to your head and said "give me your wallet or your daughter", you couldn't hold me responsible for your "choice". Same distorted logic you and CT are using.

And let's not even start with this "personal responsibility" nonsense when the entire bill is nothing more than a giant handout for people who exercise virtually none of it.

CriticalThought said:

Since the 1936 decision? Nope. You gotta problem with it, then pass a Federal Constitutional Amendment. After all, that is what you want everyone else to do to expand the Federal government's power right? Then why don't practice what you preach by using that method to decrease it?

Click to expand...

So, your position is nothing more than a shallow appeal to the SCOTUS (they've never been wrong, have they?)? I mistakenly thought you had some kind of intellectually-based argument to back your position. Silly me, expecting an extreme leftist to actually use reality and logic to frame an argument...

Dav said:

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.

Click to expand...

Their sole purpose right now should be to oppose each and every plan the democrats put forth...to give them no quarter and to harass and harry every single movement Obama makes.

When the election comes, their purpose should be to remind the country that they stood in blockade against Obama and Co. and then to take back the congress and, eventually, the presidency. Then they can start unraveling some of this mess and getting us back on track.

Gander said:

Oh damn! You scorched me there!

So, why did Thomas Jefferson want to amend the Constitution so as to allow for Federal funding of education if the "general welfare clause" already permitted him to do so? I guess you know the Constitution better than him...:roll:

Let's see what Madison, the Father of the Constitution, has to say about it:



So, you've been proven wrong. Care to revise your simplistic and intellectually dishonest position so that it properly reflects reality?

Click to expand...

Wow, I've been proven wrong? And yet the health care law still exists, as does every other form of welfare that Congress has passed in the last 80 odd years. Interesting how that works. It's interesting how the reality doesn't match up to your ideology and views on the founding fathers. Also, why did ol' Thomas Jefferson do a 180 on his views of limiting the federal government when it was his turn to be president? And since when is Madison the "father of the Constitution"? As I recall, his signature wasn't the only one on the thing. I think you have built a pretty nice rosy perception of history to support your ideological beliefs, but it doesn't change the reality one little bit. Good luck on getting your Constitutional Amendment passed to limit the powers of the Federal Government.

They are basing that decision upon a piece of legislation that Obama supports. Absent the legislation, there would be no need to make such a "choice" (if you can really call it that). I know you don't want your messiah to take responsibility for anything he does, but some of us are less impressed by him than you are...

Click to expand...

32 million more people covered and 9 million people who might have to change insurance because their employers would prefer to pay a penalty than look out for their well being. Hm...yup I think this is something Obama will have no problem taking responsibility for in the end.

CriticalThought said:

Providing for the general welfare and common defense.

Next.

Click to expand...

If the founders meant for, "general welfare", to be interpretted that way, why didn't they immediately start entitlement programs? None of them even suggested that we create such programs. Why not?

CriticalThought said:

Since the 1936 decision? Nope. You gotta problem with it, then pass a Federal Constitutional Amendment. After all, that is what you want everyone else to do to expand the Federal government's power right? Then why don't practice what you preach by using that method to decrease it?

Click to expand...

You cannot be serious...

I mean, I have seen blind fealty to the Supreme Court, but this takes the cake.

Since when has the Court become the superior branch of government?

apdst said:

If the founders meant for, "general welfare", to be interpretted that way, why didn't they immediately start entitlement programs? None of them even suggested that we create such programs. Why not?

Click to expand...

Are you seriously asking why the founders, who lived during a time where the top medical treatments were leeches, blood letting, and amputation, did not start medical entitlement programs? Your logic is funny. Why didn't the founders free the slaves? Why didn't the founders give woman the right to vote? I guess we should go back on those advances simply because it wasn't the founders intended or did themselves.

CriticalThought said:

Are you seriously asking why the founders, who lived during a time where the top medical treatments were leeches, blood letting, and amputation, did not start medical entitlement programs? Your logic is funny. Why didn't the founders free the slaves? Why didn't the founders give woman the right to vote? I guess we should go back on those advances simply because it wasn't the founders intended or did themselves.

Click to expand...

Why wasn't a welfare program for the poor started? I'm not talking just about government run healthcare.

CriticalThought said:

Wow, I've been proven wrong?

Click to expand...

Of course you have. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson have corrected your error and the error of the Supreme Court by speaking plain English. Here's another you might like...

Our tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.
--Thomas Jefferson

And yet the health care law still exists, as does every other form of welfare that Congress has passed in the last 80 odd years. Interesting how that works. It's interesting how the reality doesn't match up to your ideology and views on the founding fathers.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is interesting, isn't it? That the Supreme Court would ignore the views of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson when interpreting the general welfare clause. How very interesting!

Also, why did ol' Thomas Jefferson do a 180 on his views of limiting the federal government when it was his turn to be president?

Click to expand...

Be more specific. I don't recall him doing a "180 on his views of limiting the federal government" while President. He may have made specific exceptions to the giant body of his entire political philosophy, but he certainly didn't abandon it as you are implying.

And since when is Madison the "father of the Constitution"? As I recall, his signature wasn't the only one on the thing. I think you have built a pretty nice rosy perception of history to support your ideological beliefs...

Click to expand...

No wonder you have such a silly view of the Constitution. You're ignorant of basic American political history.

Madison was the principle author of the Constitution as well as the majority contributor to the Federalist Papers (ever hear of those?). That is why he's "The Father of the Constitution." He articulated and refined the basic legal framework of the document and our government. Read a history book, please.

...but it doesn't change the reality one little bit. Good luck on getting your Constitutional Amendment passed to limit the powers of the Federal Government.

Click to expand...

You went from "the SCOTUS says so!!!" to the "neener-neener-neener" argument. Impressive...

32 million more people covered and 9 million people who might have to change insurance because their employers would prefer to pay a penalty than look out for their well being. Hm...yup I think this is something Obama will have no problem taking responsibility for in the end.

Click to expand...

Evil employers!!! Damned business owners with their giving people jobs!!! We must punish and demonize them!!! *mouth-foam*

Fact remains, Obama is forcing people into a choice, which isn't really a choice at all. He lied to 9 million people when he said they could keep their insurance if they liked it. I'm sure the "party of no" will remind them of this in the upcoming elections...:2wave:

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 love it that this debate about the ‘Party of No’ was covered on NBC's Meet the Press however briefly. David Brooks identified himself as the party of ‘Maybe’ and Republican policy wonks like Rep. Paul Ryan as the ‘Party of Yes.’ He went on to say:

CriticalThought said:

Wow, I've been proven wrong?

Click to expand...

Intellectually, yes.

And yet the health care law still exists, as does every other form of welfare that Congress has passed in the last 80 odd years. Interesting how that works.

Click to expand...

And? It "works" only because we have permitted our elected representatives to subordinate themselves to the will of an unelected and unaccountable court. People like me say this is a perversion of constitutional republic. Your perception of the general welfare clause completely flips the intent of the founding fathers on it's head. Your perverse view on the Constitution results in unlimited national authority, which is explicitly contradicted by the views of the founding fathers.

It's interesting how the reality doesn't match up to your ideology and views on the founding fathers.

Click to expand...

Are you really going to argue that the founding fathers did not have the intent of limiting the power of the national government? Our views on the founding fathers is accurate. You and others like you are the ones perverting it to suit your political preferences.

Also, why did ol' Thomas Jefferson do a 180 on his views of limiting the federal government when it was his turn to be president? And since when is Madison the "father of the Constitution"?

Click to expand...

Bzzzzz, irrelevant.

Good luck on getting your Constitutional Amendment passed to limit the powers of the Federal Government

Click to expand...

Wow! My goodness! What do you have against liberty? Oooops, my bad...it interferes with your inability to impose your preferences on others.

32 million more people covered and 9 million people who might have to change insurance

Click to expand...

I recall this started out as an exercise to correct the crisis of nearly 50 - 60 million uninsured people and with Obama promising if we liked our current plans we could stay on them.

And we end up a little more than of that crisis, errr, I guess it wasn't much of a crisis, addressed and neatly 10 million people having to change their plans despite Obama's year long promise to the contrary.

Yet, you have no problem with this...oh yeah, my bad, it imposes your preferences on the rest of us. So what's next? You coming in to inspect my cabinets and fridge to ensure that I'm not eating whatever you think it is I shouldn't eat? I mean, the fed govt has that power, right?

because their employers would prefer to pay a penalty than look out for their well being. Hm...yup I think this is something Obama will have no problem taking responsibility for in the end.

Click to expand...

And his party will get hammered. Nearly 80% of Americans, according to a recent Fox News poll, prefer to see Obamacare repealed or substantially changed.

Despite our elected representatives voting this, this does not translate into popular support.

It was an exercise of raw political power. Why don't you have a problem with brining legislators, unions, and corporations?

CriticalThought said:

Are you seriously asking why the founders, who lived during a time where the top medical treatments were leeches, blood letting, and amputation, did not start medical entitlement programs? Your logic is funny. Why didn't the founders free the slaves? Why didn't the founders give woman the right to vote? I guess we should go back on those advances simply because it wasn't the founders intended or did themselves.

Click to expand...

The Founders didn't free the slaves because the Union was newly formed and fragile. It would've formed a rift through the middle of an infant democracy at a time when it could ill-afford it. Once again, read a history book.

Nevertheless, many of the Founders were the first abolitionists. Benjamin Franklin practically fathered the movement which would free the slaves.

But why are we even talking about that? You're conflating social rights with basic legal construction. Yea, some of the Founders were racist and misogynist, not sure how that relates to their legal views on the general welfare clause...

apdst said:

Why wasn't a welfare program for the poor started? I'm not talking just about government run healthcare.

Click to expand...

You don't have a very good grasp of American history do you? The government gave away virtually free land to anyone willing to settle it. Does that constitute an entitlement program? Government resources being distributed to the poor? Relief programs and poor houses were also very common.

Thomas Paine was the first to suggest a welfare entitlement program.

Chappy said:

I love it that this debate about the ‘Party of No’ was covered on NBC's Meet the Press however briefly. David Brooks identified himself as the party of ‘Maybe’ and Republican policy wonks like Rep. Paul Ryan as the ‘Party of Yes.’ He went on to say:

“Palin. The Tea Parties. Listen, the Tea Party movement is a movement without a structure, without an organization. No movement like that lasts.” — David Brooks, Columnist, NBC's Meet the Press, 4/11/2010​

Click to expand...

Okay, Chappy, we get it. You think the GOP is appropriately labeled as the "party of no". Your position is duly noted. Care to add something else, or are you just going to parrot your leftist rhetoric some more?

Chappy said:

I love it that this debate about the ‘Party of No’ was covered on NBC's Meet the Press however briefly. David Brooks identified himself as the party of ‘Maybe’ and Republican policy wonks like Rep. Paul Ryan as the ‘Party of Yes.’ He went on to say:

“Palin. The Tea Parties. Listen, the Tea Party movement is a movement without a structure, without an organization. No movement like that lasts.” — David Brooks, Columnist, NBC's Meet the Press, 4/11/2010​

Click to expand...

When we have a government that is hell bent on taking away our freedoms, I thank God that there is a party of, "NO", in this country.