View Poll Results: Do You Support No?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes: No is a wonderful word that greatly enhances freedom

    17 85.00%
  • No. I hate saying no. No is evil, and when used twice is a four letter word.

    3 15.00%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: The Party of No

  1. #21
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,338
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Party of No

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Not so much a conspiracy as the abandonment of all objectivity by the media and of logic by liberals.

    Both groups proceed from a reliance upon orthodoxy that cuts off all reasoned discourse and substantive debate--the liberal position is deemed correct in all particulars by default, even when it flies in the face of experience and is internally contradictory to the point of incoherence.

    Not a conspiracy, just an epidemic of sloppy thinking. As the saying goes, never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. As Dear Leader has proven daily since his inauguration, stupidity is the order of the day for liberals.
    And yet, I remember that liberal media reporting at least one very effective attack that the republicans made, and mentioned in my earlier post. In fact, they showed the same footage again when it was discovered that protections for bonuses was buried in the stimulus bill, and was again effective. The argument was so effective both times that it swayed me, a card carrying democrat.

    The problem is that a fair number of republicans insist on saying outrageous and/or dumb comments, which are much more likely to get reported on than any congressional debate. The same thing happened to an extent to democrats during the early part of the Bush administration, when the democratic party was at it's low point. If you run a network who's primary job is to attain ratings, which story are you going to cover...some boring, technical debate over the best way to stimulate the economy. or the Texas governor suggesting succession? Which story is going to draw ratings, and increase revenue for the station?

    Basically, you guys on the right have to stop attacking each other, and making foolish comments(my fav, the recent where a republican commented on the last 2 swine flue outbreaks have been under democratic administrations), get a platform, and broadcast it in nice, clear terms, with no self induced distractions.

  2. #22
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,338
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Party of No

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    The spoiled child reaches drops his marshmallow into the fire.

    Why shouldn't the mother say "no"?

    Saying no is the correct thing to do.

    Since the Democrats don't do anything that turns out well, just knowing it's Democrat that proposes it is sufficient for a "no" by any sane person.
    This is a great example of why the republicans are perceived as just "the party of no". It explains nothing about why you oppose anything, and just comes off as spiteful.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Party of No

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    This is a great example of why the republicans are perceived as just "the party of no". It explains nothing about why you oppose anything, and just comes off as spiteful.
    You mean, because I gave an effective counter-example?

    To pick two related items, the Republicans should say categorically "no" to all tax increases and all unconstitutional spending. Please note, I did not say "spending increases".

    They should explain their opposition, but stand by their opposition without any gobbledy-gook about maybe cooperating if some little details are changed.

    No unconstitutional spending, and no new taxes.

    That's how the national economy will be revived.

  4. #24
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: The Party of No

    The biggest problem with politics today is the lack of opposition to the party in power. During the 90's, the congress/president split gave a reasonable division of power and things were much better. Nowadays we keep getting single party rule. The democrats were simply too spineless to ever stand up to Bush. The republicans have marginalized themselves to uselessness from mindless attacks and have pretty much lost the filibuster. Our constitution divided power for a reason, it is not healthy for 1 party to continually run the whole show.

  5. #25
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,338
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The Party of No

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You mean, because I gave an effective counter-example?

    To pick two related items, the Republicans should say categorically "no" to all tax increases and all unconstitutional spending. Please note, I did not say "spending increases".

    They should explain their opposition, but stand by their opposition without any gobbledy-gook about maybe cooperating if some little details are changed.

    No unconstitutional spending, and no new taxes.

    That's how the national economy will be revived.
    In the post I replied to, you offered no examples, you just said "Since the Democrats don't do anything that turns out well, just knowing it's Democrat that proposes it is sufficient for a "no" by any sane person".

  6. #26
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: The Party of No

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    If you run a network who's primary job is to attain ratings, which story are you going to cover...some boring, technical debate over the best way to stimulate the economy. or the Texas governor suggesting succession? Which story is going to draw ratings, and increase revenue for the station?
    Well, since the Texas governor never suggested or advocated secession, but merely stated the right of Texas to secede, reporting the story of Governor Rick Perry advocating secession is of course the story CNN will give top billing. Why bother reporting what was actually said when the lie is so much more entertaining?

  7. #27
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: The Party of No

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Any and every tax increase.
    Even to pay down the debt?

    Any and every unconstitutional spending increase/Any and every unconstitutional program.
    Well, how do you define unconstitutional, especially in vague parts of the document?

    Any and every attempt to nationalize health care.
    How do you define "nationalize?" Changing the payment system away from insurance that makes money by denying service while maintaining the free market aspect of doctor and hospital competition is one of the proposals. People call that nationalization.

    Any and every attempt to prevent domestic oil drilling.
    So you should say no to state's rights?

    Any and all attempts to coddling dictators.
    This seems like a serious break from historical Republican (and democrat) behavior. Sometimes we need dictators. Absolute no seems like reducing your options.

    Any and all Liberal and anti-American judicial appointments.
    Probably the most subjective item on the list.

    Any and all unfunded mandates.
    So no to taxes to fund such mandates and obligations, but no to unfunded mandates? How does that work? Bankruptcy?

    Any and all attempts to apologize to any other nation for anything in our past, since compared to them our history is spotless.
    Like Tuvalu? How about Mongolia?

    Any and all attempts to curtail or otherwise infringe on our Constitutional freedoms, including expected new efforts at media censorship from the left, the expected new assualts on gun ownership freedoms, etc.
    You do realize that the right leaning judges just ruled that the FCC can censor? P-A-R-T-I-S-A-N

    And say "no" to practically any the Democrats do, because they're Democrats, and they wouldn't be Democrats if they weren't wrong almost all the time on almost everything under the sun.
    Is this list intentionally a joke?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Party of No

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    The biggest problem with politics today is the lack of opposition to the party in power. During the 90's, the congress/president split gave a reasonable division of power and things were much better. Nowadays we keep getting single party rule. The democrats were simply too spineless to ever stand up to Bush. The republicans have marginalized themselves to uselessness from mindless attacks and have pretty much lost the filibuster. Our constitution divided power for a reason, it is not healthy for 1 party to continually run the whole show.
    Oh, be for real. The Democrats were getting everything that wanted from This Bush, just like they got The Previous Bush to follow orders, too.

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Party of No

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Even to pay down the debt?
    Once government spending in inside Constitutional limits, we're so over taxed the debt will be paid down.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Well, how do you define unconstitutional, especially in vague parts of the document?
    It's not hard. Read Article 1, Section 8. If the desired spending isn't specificaly authorized in that section, it's not authorized. That means, for example, the entire federal budget for education isn't allowed. Socialist Security is a no-no, Medicaire, and agricultural price supports, FHA loans, and all forms of welfare. Also, there absolutely no authority for any form of nationalized health care,

    Gee, ya think if the government cuts the 80-90% of the budget that is currently illegal, we might be able to reduce the national debt without raising taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    How do you define "nationalize?"
    I'm not your dictionary.

    Needless to say, the meaning of the word "nationalize" is "obvious".

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Changing the payment system away from insurance that makes money by denying service while maintaining the free market aspect of doctor and hospital competition is one of the proposals. People call that nationalization.
    Study "Singin' in the Rain". I ain't people.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    So you should say no to state's rights?
    Last time I checked, we're discussing the national GOP. But if some states want to be retarded and lose revenues by denying drilling on their land, fine. It's not a call the federal government can make. Generally, natural selection takes effect in those matters and the states being retarded lose money and turn into Arkansas.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    This seems like a serious break from historical Republican (and democrat) behavior. Sometimes we need dictators. Absolute no seems like reducing your options.
    Only a Democrat would declare the need for a dictator. Aren't ya glad you elected one finally?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Probably the most subjective item on the list.
    No, probably the most objective item there.

    Oh, I forgot. You don't know what "unconstitutional" means.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    So no to taxes to fund such mandates and obligations, but no to unfunded mandates? How does that work? Bankruptcy?
    How about not ordering the states to do things the federal government isn't allowed to finance? How about respecting the Tenth Amendment, something the ball-less state legislatures should have been insisting on since Wilson took office.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Like Tuvalu? How about Mongolia?
    Seems like China needs to apologize about Mongolia, Tuvalu seems to be an internal squabble we had nothing to do with. In either case, clearly the US doesn't need to apologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    You do realize that the right leaning judges just ruled that the FCC can censor? P-A-R-T-I-S-A-N
    Oh, you mean they deemed that public broadcasts need a minimum level of decency? So? People that want to watch trash can pay for private channels, what's the big deal? There's no First Amendment issues here.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Is this list intentionally a joke?
    Do you think its funny that because the opposite that list is what's really happening the nation is swirling down the crapper?

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: The Party of No

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    In the post I replied to, you offered no examples, you just said "Since the Democrats don't do anything that turns out well, just knowing it's Democrat that proposes it is sufficient for a "no" by any sane person".
    If I say "the democrats don't do anything that turns out well", then I can't provide an example of what they've done that works. How many examples of Democrat screwup do I have to post?

    They want to raise taxes. Needless to say, that'll shut the economy down.

    They loaned billions to Chrysler....and then told them to go into bankruptcy.

    Nah, I ain't gonna bother with the list.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •