The Party of No

celticlord · May 2, 2009

Redress said:
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?

obvious Child · May 2, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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?

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 2, 2009

rathi said:
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.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 3, 2009

obvious Child said:
Even to pay down the debt?

Once government spending in inside Constitutional limits, we're so over taxed the debt will be paid down.

obvious Child said:
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?

obvious Child said:
How do you define "nationalize?"

I'm not your dictionary.

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

obvious Child said:
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.

obvious Child said:
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.

obvious Child said:
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?

obvious Child said:
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.

obvious Child said:
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.

obvious Child said:
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.

obvious Child said:
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.

obvious Child said:
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?

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 3, 2009

Redress said:
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.

Redress · May 3, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
They loaned billions to Chrysler....and then told them to go into bankruptcy.

The auto bailout was announced on the 19 of December, a full month before Obama took office. It was not Clinton or Congress that authorized the bailout, but the Bush administration.

No one told Chrysler "to go into bankruptcy", but instead, they where given a deadline to make deals. As I understand it, the union made the concessions needed, but the holders of Chrysler's debt refused any deal offered, since they get more money if Chrysler goes into bankruptcy. I wish I could remember where I saw the interesting article on the hedge funds that are buying up debt of companies in trouble, it's a pretty bizarre setup.

new coup for you · May 3, 2009

Dav said:
This man does not represent my party :3oops:

look at the voting record for the stimulus bill and explain to me how the original post isn't represenative of the Republican party.

that guy IS the party. I absolutely do not think all Republicans are like him, however, I do think he is the net effect.

obvious Child · May 3, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Once government spending in inside Constitutional limits, we're so over taxed the debt will be paid down.

There are Constitutional limits on how much we can spend? Care to cite that figure from the COTUS?

It's not hard. Read Article 1, Section 8. If the desired spending isn't specificaly authorized in that section, it's not authorized.

Too bad that entire section is vague.

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

Ah another stupid general welfare argument. I'm not going to take the bait.

I'm not your dictionary.

I know. Many people don't have one. Hence why I ask people to get one.

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

Not really.

Study "Singin' in the Rain". I ain't people.

Well, if it's so obvious as to what the definition is, then you should be able to tell me if that is nationalization or not since others have called that nationalization.

Well, put up or shutup.

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.

Retarded? How is severely reducing tourism "retarded?" How is severely damaging water supplies during major droughts "retarded?" How is destroying fishing and other agricultural and tourism attractions "retarded?"

Diversification is a good idea. Learn it.

Only a Democrat would declare the need for a dictator. Aren't ya glad you elected one finally?

So Reagan was a Democrat? Huh. Alright. If you say so.

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

See #1.

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.

Again, See #1. I'm not playing that general welfare game.

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.

Apparently you missed the "our record is cleaner" statement you made. I'll let you catch up.

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.

Yay! More government intervention. Yay! More government telling us what to do! Yay more government not letting the market decide! Yay Socialism!

Oh wait. What are we arguing for? :2wave:

Do you think its funny that because the opposite that list is what's really happening the nation is swirling down the crapper?

I think your list is ridiculous partisan and quite funny actually.

Dav · May 3, 2009

new coup for you said:
look at the voting record for the stimulus bill and explain to me how the original post isn't represenative of the Republican party.

that guy IS the party. I absolutely do not think all Republicans are like him, however, I do think he is the net effect.

I couldn't be happier that all but 3 republicans said "no" to the biggest waste of money in American history. It's not the general message I'm against, it's his intolerant, hyperpartisan undertones.

Dav · May 3, 2009

obvious Child said:
So Reagan was a Democrat? Huh. Alright. If you say so.

You were doing so well until you said this....

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 3, 2009

Redress said:
The auto bailout was announced on the 19 of December, a full month before Obama took office. It was not Clinton or Congress that authorized the bailout, but the Bush administration.

So you don't live in the real world.

I can understand that. No one living in the real world would vote for a Democrat.

In the real world, bills are written by Congress and signed by the President.

In the real world, the automaker bailout was passed by the current Congress and signed by the current President.

Those are facts you might want to deal with, if you ever wish to see what the real world is like.

Redress said:
No one told Chrysler "to go into bankruptcy",

Nonsense.

Pay attention to the news.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 3, 2009

new coup for you said:
look at the voting record for the stimulus bill and explain to me how the original post isn't represenative of the Republican party.

Clearly it is not representative of the scum Republicans in office. They're publicly afraid to say no.

new coup for you said:
that guy IS the party.

Clearly not true, take a lookee at the scum Republicans in office that all have their tongues probing Democrat uvula from the back door.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 3, 2009

Dav said:
I couldn't be happier that all but 3 republicans said "no" to the biggest waste of money in American history. It's not the general message I'm against, it's his intolerant, hyperpartisan undertones.

Damn straight I'm intolerant.

I don't like slave masters. You expect I should tolerate them? Whassamatta with you?

I don't like elected trash with a known willingness to compromise my freedoms for their advantage. You prefer people that are tolerant in their chains? Whassamatta with you?

You can't read the Constitution? Whassamatta with you?

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 3, 2009

obvious Child said:
There are Constitutional limits on how much we can spend? Care to cite that figure from the COTUS?

Care to read the Constitution, instead?

obvious Child said:
Too bad that entire section is vague.

That entire section is explicit.

Learn how to read.

obvious Child said:
Ah another stupid general welfare argument. I'm not going to take the bait.

So you agree public funding for education isn't constitutional.

Good for you.

Now find the guts to admit it.

Oh, you want to pretend it does? Then you're arguing against Thomas Jefferson.

obvious Child said:
Not really.

Well, not for you. For people who can read the Constitution it is, and for those of us that own a dictionary, too.

This is the best you can do?

Then you're wasting my time.

new coup for you · May 3, 2009

i'd like to thank you for turning your party into a group of irrelevant cranks

it benefits me politically

Redress · May 3, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So you don't live in the real world.

I can understand that. No one living in the real world would vote for a Democrat.

In the real world, bills are written by Congress and signed by the President.

In the real world, the automaker bailout was passed by the current Congress and signed by the current President.

Those are facts you might want to deal with, if you ever wish to see what the real world is like.

I admit it, I laughed when I read this. Speaking from ignorance while tossing out little insults makes this too easy.

Here is what happened. Bush approved the use of money congress had approved for the Wall Street bailout to be used to give loans to Chrysler and GM. Yes, that is right, Bush ordered money that congress had authorized for another use, to be given to the auto industry, 17.4 billion dollars to be exact. This was not approved by the current congress, nor signed by the current president. A quick google search would have let you know this stuff, and would save you from making such egregious misstatements.

Now that you have these facts, you might want to revise your comments to bring them in line with the real world.

Ethereal · May 3, 2009

new coup for you said:
i'd like to thank you for turning your party into a group of irrelevant cranks

it benefits me politically

How does it benefit you politically? Are you running for office? Are you lobbying Congress? Or is your love of the Democratic party just intrinsic?

I think what you were trying to say is that it benefits you "socioeconomically", but this would only make sense if you were one of the following:

1. On some form of welfare.
2. Looking to be on some form of welfare.
3. Pathologically incapable of purchasing health insurance.
4. The head of a union.
5. A failing corporation.

I don't see what other benefits you could possibly derive from a Democratic controlled Congress and White House. So, New Coup, which one is it? Are you a lazy bum, a union thug, or an incompetent businessman?

new coup for you · May 3, 2009

Ethereal said:
How does it benefit you politically? Are you running for office? Are you lobbying Congress? Or is your love of the Democratic party just intrinsic?

I think what you were trying to say is that it benefits you "socioeconomically", but this would only make sense if you were one of the following:

1. On some form of welfare.
2. Looking to be on some form of welfare.
3. Pathologically incapable of purchasing health insurance.
4. The head of a union.
5. A failing corporation.

I don't see what other benefits you could possibly derive from a Democratic controlled Congress and White House. So, New Coup, which one is it? Are you a lazy bum, a union thug, or an incompetent businessman?

you're a cartoon.

Tucker Case · May 3, 2009

Maybe......

Ethereal · May 3, 2009

new coup for you said:
you're a cartoon.

Why do you even bother coming to this website? You rarely engage anyone in a serious debate and when you do "debate" it's nothing more than an emotive soliloquy. Your main contribution of over 10,000 posts has been nothing but snarky little comments and irrelevant anecdotes about your personal life. Last time I checked this wasn't a blog site for intellectually bankrupt fashionistas. Put up or shut up.

new coup for you · May 3, 2009

Ethereal said:
Why do you even bother coming to this website? You rarely engage anyone in a serious debate and when you do "debate" it's nothing more than an emotive soliloquy. Your main contribution of over 10,000 posts has been nothing but snarky little comments and irrelevant anecdotes about your personal life. Last time I checked this wasn't a blog site for intellectually bankrupt fashionistas. Put up or shut up.

I'm sorry I wont dignify "are you a baby killer or a union thug?!"

Your main contributions have been to post the same inane **** as every other hyper right-wing psycho. We have like six of you, you're irrelevant.

Ethereal · May 3, 2009

new coup for you said:
I'm sorry I wont dignify "are you a baby killer or a union thug?!"

Humblest apologies. Allow me to rephrase the question so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.

New Coup, please don't take offense at the ensuing question but I would like to know what possible political or socioeconomic benefit you could derive from the GOP's marginalization.

Is that better sweetie-pie?

Your main contributions have been to post the same inane **** as every other hyper right-wing psycho. We have like six of you, you're irrelevant.

I'm socially liberal and economically conservative. I know it's easier for you to just generalize, but the facts are far more compelling. As for my irrelevance, I have enough "thanks" to suggest I'm somewhat appreciated. Not that my online relevance is of great concern to me, but I enjoy refuting your erroneous claims, of which there is no shortage.

The Party of No

Do You Support No?

Yes: No is a wonderful word that greatly enhances freedom

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

More options

celticlord

Well-known member

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Dav

Dav

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Ethereal

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Ethereal

new coup for you

Upper West Side Jacobin

Ethereal