Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room: GOP

Bike Shops Coaches Fitters Race Calendar NEW Running Stores Stack & Reach Training Log Triathlon Clubs
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Search for (options)

Newsletter Signup

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
GOP - the party of NO

YaHey

Nov 21, 09 6:46

Post #1 of 20 (311 views)

GOP - the party of NO	Can't Post

The GOP is "The Party of 'No' " for its single-minded efforts to derail virtually every plan or program coming from Congress and the White House. That's not necessarily shameful since that is the role of the minority opposition. But lately, the "The Party of 'No' " seems to have become "The Party of 'Noooooooooo!' " -- a coalition of shameless cynics and true cowards who whip up and exploit fear of change and distrust of all things having to do with the government. When they are part of the government and want to become the majority party. The fight against health insurance reform, against marriage equality for gays and lesbians, against resident undocumented immigrants, against regulatory reform, agains, a new strategy in the Middle East, against the Stimulus, against tax reform, to name a few, are marked not by calls for caution or prudence, but by appeals to the anxieties and nameless dreads that haunt us in our weakest moments. The GOP wants us to be afraid of all change - unless it's their change. The GOP's strategy is to undermine the current government so they can get in power. They have no better alternative, and in some cases no alternative. But as long as the public doesn't take the democratic proposed changes, they win - even if the country loses.

How about if the party of NO, becomes the party of solution finding? Is that too much to ask?

-------------------------------------

drake

Nov 21, 09 6:50

Post #2 of 20 (305 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [YaHey] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Last I checked the Party of YES has a majority in the House AND Senate. Why doesn't the party of YES just pass the bills to combat global warming and pass healthcare?

Oh right, the American people NOT the Republican party are against the CURRENT VERSION of these bills.

YaHey

Nov 21, 09 6:52

Post #3 of 20 (299 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [drake] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I think they are trying to pass these bills now - last time I checked the "people" don't vote in congress, elected officials do, so unless the people you are describing are "GOP elected members" then I am not sure what you are talking about.

-------------------------------------

(This post was edited by YaHey on Nov 21, 09 6:53)

Pedalsaurus_Tex

Nov 21, 09 7:35

Post #4 of 20 (282 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [YaHey] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Its actually the party of Fuck No

FJB

Nov 21, 09 8:10

Post #5 of 20 (272 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [YaHey] [In reply to]	Can't Post

GOP - the party of NO and FEAR

Fixed it for you.

You're welcome.

blueraider_mike

Nov 21, 09 9:02

Post #6 of 20 (262 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [YaHey] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Not sure where to begin...

The only solution is NO...its spending less. Americans and private businesses are de-leveraging...the stat I saw is Americans are paying off debt at a rate of 25 billion per month and the savings rate is up to a whopping 3%. It will take about 3 years of this to get back to debt to income levels of 1980. Meanwhile, the Party of Yes (Democrats) which have CONTROLLED govt spending since 2006 have added 39% to our national debt in 3 short years. So we have the real world acting like adults and we have the politicians countering this action...I love how in these bills they propose; meanwhile we are going to spend an addition trillion, but the deficit will fall by 100 billion...

What is wrong with this picture?

As far as Healthcare reform; the bills from both the House and the Senate are not about "reform". As an aside, how can spend 1 Trillion and not cover everyone?

As far as Stimulus...the bill got passed, what are you bitching about? (tho it wasn't a stimulus bill, they just called it that) - where are the jobs?

As far as the Middle East...Obama said it was the war that needed to be WON...he's moved his position...the party of no is supporting the Obama hand-picked general.

As far as marrage for gays...Sorry, but we have bigger issues as a country to worry about. Aside from that, people keep rejecting the idea at the ballot box.

As far as undocumented immigrants....They are rules on the books to immigrate to the USA.

What I am lovin right now is clear choices between the two parties...the RINO's are either becoming Dems or they will go back to their core beliefs...yeah, its messy, but isn't it beautiful to watch.
******************************************
"At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That's nine times Congress' prediction. Today's Medicare tab comes to $420 billion with no signs of leveling off. How much confidence can we have in any cost estimates by the White House or Congress?" - economist Walter E. Williams

jar1635

Nov 21, 09 9:14

Post #7 of 20 (260 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [YaHey] [In reply to]	Can't Post

becomes the party of solution finding?

I see that you have finally realized the Democrats are clueless at finding solutions on their own. Congratulations, you've come over to the dark side.

big kahuna

Nov 21, 09 11:16

Post #8 of 20 (235 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [jar1635] [In reply to]	Can't Post

He doesn't seem to remember that it was the Dems from around 2003 until January 20th of 2009 that had been given the tag "The Party of No" by the lamestream media. In fact, they pretty much took back the House and the Senate by sitting on the sidelines, carping about everything (even things they voted for, like Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, for example) and pouting like spoiled little children who only knew the word "No" and who knew they'd win because they weren't thought to be be spendthrift Reps (what a lie that turned out to be). Now the Dems are mad when they get back back some of what they chucked at the other side? Classic :-)

T.

last tri in 83

Nov 21, 09 11:19

Post #9 of 20 (234 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [blueraider_mike] [In reply to]	Can't Post

what he said

_____________________________________________
No one appreciates my humor anymore. --Sphere

big kahuna

Nov 21, 09 11:32

Post #10 of 20 (230 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [last tri in 83] [In reply to]	Can't Post

what he said

It was a beatdown of epic proportions. I think he's still choking on his vente macchiato over it ;-)

T.

last tri in 83

Nov 21, 09 11:34

Post #11 of 20 (229 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Can't Post

back back back <said like Chris Berman> outta here!

_____________________________________________
No one appreciates my humor anymore. --Sphere

Mito Chondria

Nov 21, 09 11:39

Post #12 of 20 (224 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [YaHey] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I agree that the GOP has lost it but not for the reasons you mentioned. The GOP used to be the party that was conservative, that was for less regulation, less government interference. Now we have a GOP that is just as wasteful as the Democrats, just on a different spending scale. They waste it on foreign policy by continueing to support certain allies while the GOP in general is very much for running the World Empire. GOP is no longer right but the middle.

As far as gay rights and social issues are concerned. I don't believe the Federal Government should be in charge of that. It's a state issue, at least that's how the union was set up to be in the first place.

The Federal Government should be in charge of 1) protecting our borders, 2) the Currency, and 3) to dispute inter-State issues that aren't resolved by the two States that are in dispute.

Everything the Federal Government should do they don't, while they do so much they don't have the Constitutional right for...

This country needs monetary policy reform before anything else. Without understanding that we are running this country into the ground and we are not that far away from reaching that point.

�The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.� -Michelangelo

MoodBoost Drink : Mood Support + Energy.

Craigster

Nov 21, 09 14:15

Post #13 of 20 (193 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [YaHey] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Again, your childish drivel seems to be attracting less and less people to debate. So let's straighten out some of your misguided thoughts:

Quote:

The fight against health insurance reform[1], against marriage equality for gays and lesbians [2], against resident undocumented immigrants [3], against regulatory reform [4], agains, a new strategy in the Middle East [5], against the Stimulus [6], against tax reform [7], to name a few...

[1] who would want to fight any legislation that will increase premiums, begin to establish the foundation of a nationalized healthcare system - which WILL kill people here in the U.S. (and not sure why we aspire to join the mediocrity of the rest of the world, when you look at the top diseases where you could die, you have a better chance of survival on every one here in the U.S.) and is really only helping 1% of the population? There is a reason that the majority of actual healthcare professionals (read: doctors) are AGAINST this bill (of course, you have to remember that the AMA is a puppet organization that only represents 20% of the physicians in the U.S. - and they can barely get a majority of THAT 20% to agree with them)...and they have not been included in crafting this....because serious intelligent people understand that this is not an situation that can be resolved easily (unlike the moronic governmental mental midgets who throw around legislation like it is monopoly money).

[2] let's correct your term, they are resident "illegal" immigrants (they have not entered our country according the laws that stipulate such entry - so they are illegal).
[3] yeah, let's get some additional regulatory reform, it has worked so well in the past i.e. the housing fiasco
[4] does anyone seriously care about changing strategies in the middle east? This is a basically a non-issue, and most people know we need to find an exit strategy that won't automatically kill hundreds of thousands of people should we leave and the whackos with the biggest guns go on a rampage
[5] why would we be against something that, thus far, has been completely ineffective, is going to be a major contributor to the exploding debt, and thus making everyone's life more miserable? But hey, they can continue to delay doing anything substantial to help the economy, as has occured thus far, natural correction will take place without them doing a thing (of course, they'll probably take credit for it, because that is why politicians do - although so few of them have any idea of how to actually DO anything- other than whine and steal other people's money).
[6] tax reform - I bet I know a few who would be up for dismantling the IRS, coming up with a truly fair system that doesn't continue to exploit the achievers in our society and eliminates the vast entitlement programs currently in effect.

of course, you're probably one of those who simply can't comprehend that "change" is not always good. It can actually make things worse (which it is, and will continue to do).

Why don't you take your sophmore year poly sci drivel and go bark up some other tree. The more you post, the more it is obvious you have no idea of cause and effect and what really happens in the world.

jaws20

Nov 21, 09 22:23

Post #14 of 20 (155 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [Craigster] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Pretty funny OP, considering that the Dems got to 60 on healthcare only AFTER the Louisiana senator extracted a $300 million concession from her party.

So, perhaps, the Dems are the party of yes, when the price is right.

[the real games will start when they actually vote on the bill and not just about having a debate on it].

________________________________________________
To the extent anything above is construed negatively or offensively, it was so intended.

Tri N OC

Nov 21, 09 22:59

Post #15 of 20 (152 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [jaws20] [In reply to]	Can't Post

[the real games will start when they actually vote on the bill and not just about having a debate on it].

No, this was the real chance to stop it. This one needed 60 votes. The vote to pass only needs 51.

big kahuna

Nov 22, 09 9:20

Post #16 of 20 (125 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [jaws20] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Pretty funny OP, considering that the Dems got to 60 on healthcare only AFTER the Louisiana senator extracted a $300 million concession from her party.

So, perhaps, the Dems are the party of yes, when the price is right.

They need 60 votes to cut off debate on the floor. If they can't keep everybody on board if the Reps filibuster they can't vote on it. FWIW, I think at least RINO Voinovich of OH folds like a cheap suit and doesn't hang with teh Reps even if the public option still remains in the bill. Lieberman's going to need every Republican voter he can find in CT when he lines up with the Reps and refuses to invoke cloture if the public option is in the bill.

Landrieu is bought and paid for like the New Orleans strumpet she turned out to be (300 mil. in bribes to LA can buy a lotta beer, after all) and Lincoln of AR is paralyzed with fear at having to vote on A bill, given that 64% of voters in AR aren't in favor of any bill coming from the Senate or the House right now.

If the Dems can invoke cloture (if a bill contains a public option, the Reps ARE going to try for a filibuster), Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson and other so-called "moderate" Dems will vote against it on the floor because they know there'll be at least 50 votes for it and it'll pass. Then, they can go home and pull a Kerrey-esque "I voted for it before I voted against it" act which ain't gonna buy them Jack Shite this time around. To me, it seems like the Dems have an electoral death wish, for some reason.

Also, if the thing passes, and a bill emerges from conference that contains a public option (even if it's cloaked in some nonsense that includes a "trigger" event in order to start a public option) and it's enacted, Obama's numbers crater even further for a while, especially considering that the taxes in the Senate bill are frontloaded so heavily, but service won't be seen (if ever) until at least 2014. He's already proven he's got no coattails when it comes to pulling shaky Dem governors across the finish line on election day (Corzine was particularly illustrative of that point).

All this thing is is another entitlement to be paid for by more taxes. It's not reform in any way, shape or form. And anybody here who believes the Congress is going to enact strong cuts to Medicare and doctor's payments in the future to help pay for this thing needs to have his head examined.

T.

jar1635

Nov 22, 09 12:19

Post #17 of 20 (116 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [big kahuna] [In reply to]	Can't Post

even things they voted for, like Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, for example let's not forget the Iraq war....

jaws20

Nov 22, 09 13:48

Post #18 of 20 (103 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [Tri N OC] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To:

My error. Just means that more dems (lumping Lieberman in the bunch) will seek concessions.

________________________________________________
To the extent anything above is construed negatively or offensively, it was so intended.

peter826

Nov 22, 09 14:29

Post #19 of 20 (94 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [blueraider_mike] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To:

Dems won 2006 ELECTIONS did not take control of anything spending related until taking office Jan 2007..

Let's give some credit where credit is due, Outstanding Debt 2000-2009

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Debt nearly 9 trillion before the Dems even took office. Yep it's gone up, no thanks to TARP, Stimulus, AIG bailouts, and god knows what else.

But...complaining about out-out-control Dem spending is a wee bit silly considering where we were when they started...

Rodred

Nov 22, 09 15:44

Post #20 of 20 (81 views)

Re: GOP - the party of NO [peter826] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To:

Its sort of like someone going 10 mph over the limit and someone yelling "Give me all youve got Scotty". The republicans spent like drunken sailors on shore leave but the current Congress is up to things that could damage us for generations and change our way of life dramatically in the wrong direction (not saying that the Rep congress debt wont last along time as well )