• 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'

Gander said:
We know what "general welfare" and "common defense" mean.
Click to expand...

Apparently not. The court defined them as they are used now. The only way to get by that at this point is to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck.


You're trying to use Thomas Paine's support of a small welfare program (not an "entitlement" program) to justify your support of massive expansion of Federal government and authority. Being adamantly opposed to centralized authority, I doubt he would have agreed with you.
Click to expand...

Small? If Paine's model were applied today it would be considered blatant socialism. You must have lied about reading it.
 
CriticalThought said:
Oh yeah, because that worked great when Bush tried it. The starving the beast method has yet to succeed so I don't know why conservatives keeping trying it.
Click to expand...

Has that been tried yet or is it still a favorite wet dream of SAY HEY NO KIDS ???
 
CriticalThought said:
Small? If Paine's model were applied today it would be considered blatant socialism. You must have lied about reading it.
Click to expand...

No, I read it, and I didn't see anything in it which would justify massive entitlement spending funded via an income tax and sustained debt. If you think Thomas Paine's version of "welfare" is anything like what we have now, then you simply don't understand his philosophy on law and government.
 
Gander said:
No, I read it, and I didn't see anything in it which would justify massive entitlement spending funded via an income tax and sustained debt. If you think Thomas Paine's version of "welfare" is anything like what we have now, then you simply don't understand his philosophy on law and government.
Click to expand...

I only said, "welfare entitlement program". You are interjecting, "massive entitlement spending funded via an income tax and sustained debt". It is irrelevant to the statement I made and verging on intellectual dishonesty.
 
Chappy said:
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 Palin

The ‘Party of No’ seems to fit as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
Given the argument, above, why would you expect anything -but- opposition?

That is, what reason does the GOP have to support The Obama's policy/legislative agenda? Why -should- they?
 
CriticalThought said:
How about defining what "general welfare" and "common defense" are suppose to mean so that they cannot be interpreted to mean anything else.
Click to expand...
The 16 clauses in Article I Section 8 that follow the first.

Under the interpretation you support, there's no need for those clauses; that they -were- included invalidates said interpretation.

A little critical thought on your part wou;d have lead you to the same conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Given the argument, above, why would you expect anything -but- opposition?

That is, what reason does the GOP have to support The Obama's policy/legislative agenda? Why -should- they?
Click to expand...

There is always an opposition party and they inevitably vote ‘No’ a lot because they don't control the agenda and the majority is bound to bring things up for a vote that the minority opposes. But, rarely, if ever, in recent history, has a party so distinguished itself in its opposition to everything as this Republican Party has in this 111th session of Congress.

The ‘Party of No’ moniker reflects not just a propensity to oppose things, but a determination to do so in just about all spheres of legislative activity. It really is unprecedented and it ill serves the nation in my opinion.
 
Chappy said:
There is always an opposition party and they inevitably vote ‘No’ a lot because they don't control the agenda and the majority is bound to bring things up for a vote that the minority opposes. But, rarely, if ever, in recent history, has a party so distinguished itself in its opposition to everything as this Republican Party has in this 111th session of Congress....It really is unprecedented and it ill serves the nation in my opinion
Click to expand...
Is this your perception, or do you have something to substantiate your statement?
And, if true, how does that invalidate what I said?

The Obama isnt offering anything the GOP, being the GOP, can support - what do you expect them to do other than vote no?
 
Goobieman said:
Is this your perception, or do you have something to substantiate your statement?
And, if true, how does that invalidate what I said?

The Obama isnt offering anything the GOP, being the GOP, can support - what do you expect them to do other than vote no?
Click to expand...




*clicky*

Here, I'll give you a for instance: Since 2007 the Senate Republicans have used the filibuster to delay, obstruct and kill more Senate action than at anytime in the Senate's post WWII history.

Minority parties vote ‘No’ a lot this is true; but I can't think of any of them earning the ‘Party of No’ label and having its leadership being so proud of it. What we are seeing is a minority party that opposes legislative progress on just about everything; the message is they oppose progress period.
 

Attachments

  • Filibusters_f847f.JPG
    Filibusters_f847f.JPG
    71.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Chappy said:
Minority parties vote ‘No’ a lot this is true; but I can't think of any of them earning the ‘Party of No’ label and having its leadership being so proud of it.
Click to expand...
OK...how does that invalidate what I said?

The Obama isnt offering anything the GOP, being the GOP, can support - what do you expect them to do other than vote no?
What we are seeing is a minority party that opposes legislative progress on just about everything; the message is they oppose progress period.
Click to expand...
Only if you agree that the policy/legislative agenda of The Obama is actually "progress" - otherwise, what you see is oppositon to an agenda that isn't shared by those in the opposition.

When the Dems opposed the GOP 1994-2006 were they also opposing progress?
 
CriticalThought said:
I only said, "welfare entitlement program". You are interjecting, "massive entitlement spending funded via an income tax and sustained debt". It is irrelevant to the statement I made and verging on intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...

It's an extension of our discussion concerning the healthcare bill. You were trying to justify it and cited Thomas Paine as a rationale for your position on Obamacare.

If that's not what you were doing, then why did you even bother stating "Paine supported the first welfare entitlement program"? Why did you bring attention to it if not to justify your position on Federal welfare expenditures?
 
Gander said:
It's an extension of our discussion concerning the healthcare bill. You were trying to justify it and cited Thomas Paine as a rationale for your position on Obamacare.
Click to expand...

You have no clue what you are talking about. Go back and read. The Paine comment was in response to apdst when he made this comment...

apdst said:
Why wasn't a welfare program for the poor started? I'm not talking just about government run healthcare.
Click to expand...

In other words, the comment was related to why the Founders didn't start a welfare program for the poor and had nothing to do with health care.

If that's not what you were doing, then why did you even bother stating "Paine supported the first welfare entitlement program"? Why did you bring attention to it if not to justify your position on Federal welfare expenditures?
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Goobieman said:
… When the Dems opposed the GOP 1994-2006 were they also opposing progress?
Click to expand...

Look at the filibuster record. Were Democrats filibustering everything? No, indeed, filibusters declined during the period.

Republicans have used filibusters like no party has in American history. And, consider the circumstances. America is suffering from a financial meltdown. Double digit unemployement. And what do Republicans do, they object to continuing unemployment benefits. It is scandalous!
 
Chappy said:
Look at the filibuster record. Were Democrats filibustering everything? No, indeed, filibusters declined during the period.
Click to expand...

You're under the assumption that the two parties, when put in the same position, will act differently, but that's not true.

The GOP has been in a position that the Democrats were never in, namely, having exactly 40, or later 41, Senators. Such a dynamic will naturally partisanize the votes in the Senate.

Republicans have used filibusters like no party has in American history. And, consider the circumstances. America is suffering from a financial meltdown. Double digit unemployement. And what do Republicans do, they object to continuing unemployment benefits. It is scandalous!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the GOP did not object to continuing unpaid for unemployment benefits. One brave senator did, and even his own party didn't have the balls to support him. I hope you realize that unemployment benefits disincentivize job creation; that's just basic economics.
 
Kinda ironic, ain't it, when a poster breathlessly notes that we're in the middle of a financial meltdown and is whining that the Republicans were opposed to an extension of unemployment benefits?? Maybe he didn't realize that the Republicans were attemtping to ensure that we would actually pay for the extension rather than borrowing to pay for it??

LMAO!!
 
Chappy said:
Look at the filibuster record. Were Democrats filibustering everything? No, indeed, filibusters declined during the period.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question, which was not based on the use of the fillibuster, but on your use of the term 'progress' in an attempt to claim the morah high ground.

So, I ask again:
When the Dems opposed the GOP 1994-2006 were they also opposing progress?
Republicans have used filibusters like no party has in American history.
Click to expand...
OK...how does that invalidate what I said?

The Obama isnt offering anything the GOP, being the GOP, can support - what do you expect them to do other than vote no?
 
The unprecedented reliance on the filibuster is not enough to convince you of Republican obstructionism? Here, I'll give you another for instance: demanding cloture votes on uncontroversial nominees to the bench.

Excerpted from “American Idle: Democratic Senators Call Out GOP Obstruction” Posted by Alliance for Justice at 5:48 PM, Tuesday, March 16, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]D[/SIZE]emocratic Senators took to the floor of the Senate today to protest the unprecedented level of obstruction towards nominees by their Republican colleagues. …


Over half of Bush’s nominees were confirmed by either unanimous consent or voice vote. In this Congress, Republicans have required cloture votes on uncontroversial nominees such as as Barbara Keenan for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals who was ultimately confirmed by a vote of 99-0.

That’s right, 99-0. The same people who requested the vote did not even voice opposition.

They are stalling not on the basis of the nominees’ records or qualifications, but simply to obstruct Obama’s nominees. In addition to Keen, there is the example of Judge Greenaway, despite the fact that he was reported out of committee unopposed and was confirmed without opposition, he had to wait 235 days—almost eight months—for a final vote where he was confirmed 84-0. Jane Stranch and Thomas Vanaskie are rapidly approaching that same timeline, both have been waiting 218 days.

There are currently 102 federal court vacancies, and according to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 31 of those vacancies are classified as “judicial emergencies” because of the size of the caseload in the court or the amount of time a seat has sat empty. …
Click to expand...

And, it's not just the bench, but also executive branch appointees, too. When announcing fifteen recess appointments last month and noting that was the same number of recess appointments issued by Bush at the same point in his first term, the White House statement also noted that “President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor” compared to Obama's 77 pending nominees.†
 
Chappy said:
The unprecedented reliance on the filibuster is not enough to convince you of Republican obstructionism? Here, I'll give you another for instance: demanding cloture votes on uncontroversial nominees to the bench.
Click to expand...
OK...how does that invalidate what I said?

You still haven't answered the question, which was not based on the use of the fillibuster, but on your use of the term 'progress' in an attempt to claim the moral high ground.

So, I ask again:
When the Dems opposed the GOP 1994-2006 were they also opposing progress?

Also unanswered:
The Obama isnt offering anything the GOP, being the GOP, can support - what do you expect them to do other than vote no?
 
Goobieman said:
The Obama isnt offering anything the GOP, being the GOP, can support - what do you expect them to do other than vote no?
Click to expand...

That is a total C.O.S.

The GOP's strategy is to oppose everything that Obama proposes....even stuff that they have supported previously.

The GOP is hoping that this strategy will pay off and that they can argue that they are an "alternative" to Obama.

Problem is...the GOP is also the "Party of NO - ideas".
If they expect their strategy to pay off, they have to offer more than the anti-Obama platform that they are currently running on.
Especially...if the economy continues to improve. If that happens, then the, we are not Obama strategy will backfire on them big time.
 
Conservative Sword said:
Kinda ironic, ain't it, when a poster breathlessly notes that we're in the middle of a financial meltdown and is whining that the Republicans were opposed to an extension of unemployment benefits?? Maybe he didn't realize that the Republicans were attemtping to ensure that we would actually pay for the extension rather than borrowing to pay for it??

LMAO!!
Click to expand...

You are so right. After all, the "Party of No" has a very long history of fiscal responsibility. The only launched unnecessary wars when they were fully funded (I think they even had the money in advance, set aside in a lock box)... and contrary to popular fact, they did not double the national debt under two of their most recent administrations, as after all, they are so fiscally responsible. A little intellectual honesty in the house, please!

LMAO
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Ok, so... what has The Obama offered to the GOP that the GOP, being the GOP, can support?
Click to expand...

The role of the minority party is to largely accept the fact that they are the minority party. They do not get to set the agenda. They get to tweak bills and draw the line only on the most egregious of bills. You have to pick your battles. You can not find everything egregious and just say no. The system just does not work that way. What happens if their is a power shift and the dems behaved the same way (assuming they had the testicular fortitude to do so, which they don't)... nothing would ever get done.

The problem is the Repubs are not 1) accepting they are out of power and 2) frankly, not fulfilling their responsibility to represent. Sorry, this is nothing but an abuse of power by the Repubs.
 
upsideguy said:
The role of the minority party is to largely accept the fact that they are the minority party. They do not get to set the agenda.
Click to expand...
Hmm. This very definitely does -not- describe the Dems when they were out of power - how was it that the Dems did not simply lay down and take whatever the GOP fed them 2001-2006? What did you think of -them- when -they- refused to do so?
They get to tweak bills and draw the line only on the most egregious of bills. You have to pick your battles. You can not find everything egregious and just say no.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. You can do what you want. Why can't you?
The system just does not work that way.
Click to expand...
This system was deliberately set up to make it difficult for the government to do anything -- so, yes it does.
What happens if their is a power shift and the dems behaved the same way (assuming they had the testicular fortitude to do so, which they don't)... nothing would ever get done.
Click to expand...
And...?
The problem is the Repubs are....frankly, not fulfilling their responsibility to represent.
Click to expand...
On what gounds?
You think their constituents want them to let The Obama's agenda pass?
By opposing The Obama's agenda, how are they not fulfilling their responsibilities?
Sorry, this is nothing but an abuse of power by the Repubs.
Click to expand...
And this is nothing but sour grapes -- how DARE those Republicans get in the way of The Obama?!?!?!?
 
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...

To be fair, the loyal opposition has an obligation to fight against things they disagree with. I don't have a problem with that. Never have. I have more problem with either side doing so dishonestly (death panels, socialism, Hitler, killing granny [something both sides have used at times] and such).
 
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...

You're right. The description is misleading. Reps should be known as the party of phony compassion.

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