-
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!
Why did Obama call the Reps. "the Party of NO"?
- Thread starter 4Horsemen
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Messages
- 9,204
- Reaction score
- 3,228
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
How do you figure?
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Probably because of this.
Since 2007, Republicans have used filibusters nearly constantly to stifle huge amounts of discussions and votes. Debate doesn't occur, compromise doesn't occur. And it's not even real filibusters anymore. No one has to stand up there and talk. It's just the threat to filibuster that shuts off all discussion. Talking stops, discussion stops, congress doing its job stops. All there is is "no".
Since 2007, Republicans have used filibusters nearly constantly to stifle huge amounts of discussions and votes. Debate doesn't occur, compromise doesn't occur. And it's not even real filibusters anymore. No one has to stand up there and talk. It's just the threat to filibuster that shuts off all discussion. Talking stops, discussion stops, congress doing its job stops. All there is is "no".
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 36,705
- Reaction score
- 17,867
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Regardless if he got 0% or 90% of what he asked for from the republicans the whole point of electing a candidate is because the views the allege that candidate claims to have. That means if the president is pushing for stuff the elected officials I voted for disagree with, then that means they are supposed to tell the president No.
4Horsemen
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 55
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Good point. If the dog won't hunt, why let him off the truck, right?
4Horsemen
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 55
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So by your analysis, no matter what ideas the current administration may have, the other side should be supportive 100%?
that's not practical.
Last edited:
celticwar17
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 6,540
- Reaction score
- 2,524
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Compromise doesn't really work...
(<----> my opinion+ <~~~~> your actual opinion)/2 = <--~~> real compromise
(<----> my opinion + <~~~~~~~~> your sneaky opinion)/2= <--~~~~> not real compromise
I think this is quite clever
(<----> my opinion+ <~~~~> your actual opinion)/2 = <--~~> real compromise
(<----> my opinion + <~~~~~~~~> your sneaky opinion)/2= <--~~~~> not real compromise
I think this is quite clever
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,810
- Reaction score
- 68,870
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
No, but this is where compromise comes in. But I don't think either party is truly interested in compromise anymore as much as they are looking to run interference on the other guys.
4Horsemen
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 55
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So all the things Obama got done, he got done without Republican support and compromise?
Make me understand your position here because it's not clear.
If Obama called them the Party of No, there has to be some validitiy to that. not a blanket generalization, which is what it was imo.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,810
- Reaction score
- 68,870
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
What's the 90% he got passed? The GOP has run interference on the Dems (it works the other way around too when the Repubs are in charge), they fillibuster as much as possible, all "debate" gets trivialized to stupid stump speeches which do not encourage debate and discussion. I see both sides of the Republocrats as the Party of No. The only thing they every agree on and "pass" is legislation which expands government power, particularly if that power is to infringe upon the free exercise of our rights.
4Horsemen
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 55
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
But we are not talking about sides right now. we are talking about specfic comments that were misleading and down right lies by Barack Obama. calling the Reps the Party of NO, when that was a bold-face lie and I would hope you Obamabots would agree.
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 20,630
- Reaction score
- 14,981
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Pure partisan politics. They opposed his plans so he called them the party of "no" for voting no on things they didn't think were best for America. Much of their criticism of Republicans is quite foolish. "They oppose the Affordable Healthcare Act! Republicans just want you to die and for the poor to never receive care." It's just partisan politics as usual.
4Horsemen
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 55
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Don't you think this is counter-productive when Obama does this? Scream out "Party of NO" just to win votes?
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,810
- Reaction score
- 68,870
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
I'm not an Obamabot, and what is the 90% he got passed?
4Horsemen
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 55
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
1. Obamacare
2. Stimulus 1
3. Continuing the fake war on terror
4. Opening Gitmo
5. Lifting the ban on gay marriage
6. Raising taxes (it's coming)
The list goes on....Everything he chirped loud about, he got, not 100%, but he got it.
Now, can you name something he didn't get which could validate his claim of "the party of NO"?
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,810
- Reaction score
- 68,870
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Obamacare is a great example of the obstinate nature of the Republocrats. The discussion immediately broke down into finger pointing. Blah blah blah socialism, blah blah blah death panels. And what did we get? A give away to the insurance companies. Much in the same light Medicade Part D was a give away to the pharmaceutical companies. Because neither party will compromise, we got the shaft.
Stimulus one was nothing more than give away to corporations, both sides love that
Continuing the fake war supports forever war and the further expansion of federal government, as I already said, that's the one thing they'll agree on
It was closing GITMO that Obama had stated (GITMO already existed before Obama in case history is something you don't know a lot about) and he didn't get it
Has the ban on Gay Marriage been lifted? It's recognized in all States?
Raising taxes....didn't Obama extend the Bush tax cuts? Hmmm, you seem to have things confused.
The "list goes on", but here's the rub. You said 90%, and arbitrary list of political hack points doesn't prove the 90%. You have to give the full list, so we have the absolute number of things he tried to pass and compare it to the list of things which did pass (not imaginary made up stuff you seem to list here). The ratio of those will give the percentage of passed initiatives and that needs to be 90% for you not to be a liar. Can you prove you aren't lying or are you just making numbers up thinking it's going to fly?
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,102
- Reaction score
- 1,504
- Location
- Sacramento, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
The GOP has fought against almost every proposal the Democrats have put forth, no matter how mundane it is. They've held up dozens of nominations without any objection to the candidate, they've refused to compromise on any bill Obama puts forward, they've threatened the financial health of this country when they blocked the debt ceiling raise. Outside of Obama's first few months on office can you give me a single bill where the Republicans negotiated with the Democrats?
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 15,440
- Reaction score
- 6,043
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
It's not a lie at all. From the very beginning, the Republican Party's stated objective (hell, they didn't even pretend otherwise) was to make sure Obama's Presidency was a failure. So they voted 'no'. Veteran's Beneifts ? Vote No, because Obama might get some credit. It was a shameful exercise by the Republicans and my only regret is that the Democrats haven't called they on this BS earlier.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/polit...s-block-murrays-1-billion-veterans-jobs-bill/
Last edited:
4Horsemen
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 55
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Your only regret?..haha...ever think they was in on it too?
Listen, as 1 example, Obamacare is going to ruin Healthcare and Vet benefits, you watch. It's a not a stable program when you have to get all your work done through the Government. just not feasible and America will feel that choke when it kicks in and everything bottlenecks.
Yeah, Private sector got greedy, I agree, made a bad name for Private, hence Obamacare is so popular.
But you have let the market bear itself out. that's with any market. from healthhcare to food. the strong survive and the schemers would've be run outta business in due time anyway. but now, coming down the hole is Obamacare, which WILL ultimatley force us all onto it. as it stands, it appears we have a choice but that's just a mechanism for positioning. it's a war move. and we are at war. make no mistake. our healthcare, or food supply, our energy, we are at war. and tbh, Obamacare is who we all will be at war with soon. with healthcare.
Capitalism is what this country was built on, and what made it strong. not Socialism.
anybody disagree? correct if I'm wrong.
so many other bad decisions he's made for us. it sucks. I see why people are trying to move out of the country. It's going down hill.
comedy4all
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2012
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 64
- Location
- georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
It was both because Reps. weren't going to give Obama a blank check and Barack was playing politics and people bought it.
He is a narcissist and it makes him mad when people don’t give him everything he wants. He also can’t run on his failures so he blames them on the republicans not letting him spend more and more and more and more.
He is a narcissist and it makes him mad when people don’t give him everything he wants. He also can’t run on his failures so he blames them on the republicans not letting him spend more and more and more and more.
comedy4all
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2012
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 64
- Location
- georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
He also had two years of full control of house and the senate. He wasted that time on the affordable care act. Which was held up by democrats not republicans.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 9,215
- Reaction score
- 5,858
- Location
- St. Louis MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I do think Obama was just playing politics with his label, but I disagree with a couple of your points.
1. Obamacare he got without a single Republican vote in the House or Senate, so you can't really use that to refute the "Party of No" rhetoric.
4. Obama was against leaving Gitmo open.
5. The ban on federal recognition of gay marriage hasn't been lifted.
6. If it hasn't happened you can't really use it.
Still, of course he was just playing politics. He wants to get reelected and that's the type of thing that people buy into.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,102
- Reaction score
- 1,504
- Location
- Sacramento, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Obama only had a 60-member house for a few months, between the swearing in of Al Franken and the death of Ted Kennedy. The GOP filibustered almost everything, so a 60-member majority was needed to get anything through.
comedy4all
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2012
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 64
- Location
- georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
If anything he put forward was any good he would have at least gotten Olympia Snow.
4Horsemen
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 55
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You're right. He snuck that signature in, in the middle of the night, just like the NDAA...go figure.
when I say "Open" I mean opened the doors and let them out...effectively closing it. bad move.
State by State it's lifting. Obama allowed for it to happen.
So you if don't get hit by the train yet, you can stand on the tracks until you do?
agreed. suckers are everywhere