New GOP House can't govern with rhetoric alone

[targus]

If he wants to add to the discussion show me articles that prove the ones I used as wrong.

Crabby thinks that links = discussion.

The result of an inability to express one's thoughts with one's own words.

 

[matt wade]

I believe the articles I linked pretty well cover what I think. Anyone who cannot figure that out .... well ......
My opinion does not come of of the blue, is not just my opinion. Tar simply wants me to make a statement so he can continue infantile questions and comments. He does this often. His questions are do not add to the discussion, just blows smoke and is his way of attempting to blow smoke. If he wants to add to the discussion show me articles that prove the ones I used as wrong.

Still avoiding the question. Why do you even bother to come to this site? Do you think that we need a guy to post links for us? Either contribute to the discussion or move on. You'd probably fit in well over at http://www.happyatheistforum.com

 

[rbell]

Crabby's first assertion:

It takes more to govern than to simply be against and never consider what should be done. The party of "NO" needs to find something positive it can promote for the country and the people of the US.

Then his re-iteration:

Maybe the Democrats learned from the GOP about saying "No." :laugh: I hope not. We need two parties that will work together for the good of the country and not two who refuse to do anything cooperatively fearing who gets credit.

My response to his incorrect statements (at the least), or intellectual dishonesty (at the most):

This "party of 'no' business is a crock. When you're not in charge, and the people that are in charge are proposing a series of horrific pieces of legislation, what are they supposed to do? Go along with Marxist garbage? Sometimes, "No" is the bravest, and wisest stand.

Not to mention: Most of the time, the best thing the government can do is get out of the way and let the free, industrious people of this great country do what they do best.

90% of all the ideas I see out of Washington are crap. So I say let's see more of "no." The less they do up there, generally the better I do down here.

Are there jobs for our government? Sure. But the list ought to be much shorter than what they have made it.

Crabby's meltdown, and re-statement of his (il)logical position (completely ignoring what I stated):

That is the kind of extremely ignorant statement I expect from you. You ask infantile questions and make silly comments, but do not add anything rational to the discussions you respond to. Additionally you almost never answer a question! (editorial comment: Crabby, I'm not sure you realize how funny the underlined statement is to many of us. You epitomize one who won't answer questions. For you to accuse others of it is laughable.)

No, I meant exactly what I said. The two parties need to cooperate, compromise some of their positions and find ways to help the US and the American people. This continued saying "No" to everything is very destructive to the country. Even when Obama proposed an idea that the GOP had been pushing for for years ... suddenly they said, "Bad idea. NO WAY." You seem to find it impossible to believe there are people who are moderates and believe a middle course is best. Extremes never are the best course and it is extremes that almost all politicians are drifting toward. If this continues it will be tragic for the US.

It is time for both parties to put the country ahead of party politics.

I repeat my statement: When a party repeatedly promotes horrible ideas that morgage our future, rob us of freedoms, and dis-incentivize hard work and initiative--not to mention contradict our most basic foundational documents--what are they supposed to do? They did not have the votes to do anything else.

Now...call 'em what you want. It's not like you're willing to be honest and look at an issue objectively anyhow.

But just on the outside chance you're willing to engage in discussion...what other choice did the Republicans have?

I eagerly await your non-reply, homework assignment, insult, or hasty departure.

 

[InTheLight]

When you say "if they don't achieve..."
Are you talking about simply passing a bill in the House of Reps? Remember to make a bill a law, it must pass the Democrat controlled Senate and signed by His Majesty.

The Republicans ran on a bunch of promises. They have to deliver.

Stop Cap and Trade
Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment
Limit annual growth in federal spending
Freeze government spending
Repeal health care bill
Place moratorium on earmarks, eventually eliminate them

Lets say they do pass several bills -ie cancel Health care - but Senate votes it down. Will the Republicans present the '12 election as the Democrats "as the party "NO" and help put the Republicans back in control of the Senate as well as the White house?

That sounds like a good strategy to me.

 

[Salty]

The Republicans ran on a bunch of promises. They have to deliver.

Stop Cap and Trade
Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment
Limit annual growth in federal spending
Freeze government spending
Repeal health care bill
Place moratorium on earmarks, eventually eliminate them

That sounds like a good strategy to me.

Health Care - POTUS would Veto
Balanced Budget - would Senate agree? then 33 States or Commonwealths?

Budget Items - will have a big say - if they dont pass outrageous $ bills - then that will be stopped.

 

[InTheLight]

Health Care - POTUS would Veto

Yes, and preferably he would do it in September or October of 2012, just before the election.