GOP

[1230abcz]

Is it just me, or is GOP getting really [bleep]ing annoying right now? It just seems that the only purpose they serve is to filibuster everything Obama and the Democratic party tries to pass. They're even opposing plans they support. My guess is that they want to make it seem like Obama is getting nothing done.

 

Now that the Senate has 41 Republican members, GOP can literally stop all legislation. It just pisses me off to no end that Republicans think that being total [bleep]s will get them elected into office, when all they're really doing is going against what the majority of the American public wants.

 

Also, FOX News sucks, too.

 

Discuss.

[Saru Inc]

Is this thread a joke.

 

 

PS: everyone knows that the GOP is [developmentally delayed]ed.

[1230abcz]

No. There aren't any political threads on Off Topic, so I made one.

[Saru Inc]

I meant the way it was formatted, it seems more like a rant. Also, what exactly does the majority of America want? statistics please.

[1230abcz]

The majority of Americans want Public Health Care, but GOP has, on more than one occasion, pulled up false/biased statistics to "show" that the majority of Americans don't support it. I don't have proof, but I saw it on CNN.

[Saru Inc]

The majority of Americans want Public Health Care, but GOP has, on more than one occasion, pulled up false/biased statistics to "show" that the majority of Americans don't support it. I don't have proof, but I saw it on CNN.

 

 

 

If so many Americans want it, show statistics, that should be easy. Don't have any? Then you have no case. Proof of fake statistics? No? Then you have no case. Link the CNN article, they probably have one.

 

 

I'm just so glad that CNN is so outstanding, and unbiased.

 

 

I really don't see how FOX is any different from any other news station, if you would like to show proof of the fact that they suck;(mind you, that's a subjective opinion so it really can't be verified to begin with) please, elucidate,

Edited January 25, 2010 by Saruman44

[Youmu]

When I read the title, I thought you were talking about the Great Orb Project, and I was about to report the topic.

 

Then I read the post...

 

I'm just wondering, why are they doing that? Are they doing that for Obama's good? Are they afraid to try risks? Or are they just lulzing with him?

[warri0r45]

Is it just me, or is GOP getting really [bleep]ing annoying right now? It just seems that the only purpose they serve is to filibuster everything Obama and the Democratic party tries to pass. They're even opposing plans they support. My guess is that they want to make it seem like Obama is getting nothing done.

 

Now that the Senate has 41 Republican members, GOP can literally stop all legislation. It just pisses me off to no end that Republicans think that being total [bleep]s will get them elected into office, when all they're really doing is going against what the majority of the American public wants.

 

Also, FOX News sucks, too.

 

Discuss.

 

And you're surprised by this? Bipartisanship is dead here too. I don't even know if it was alive in the first place. The party in opposition will alway oppose the ruling party's actions and make them seem unreasonable, no matter how stupid it is to do so. It's just the nature of politics.

[The_Gabe]

Obama is getting nothing done.

 

Republicans> you.

 

Democrats should not be able to pass bills without any republicans.

 

Fox news rule.

 

You're opinion fails.

[Lenticular_J]

Both parties are [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. Comes with the territory of a two-party system.

[Saru Inc]

Is it just me, or is GOP getting really [bleep]ing annoying right now? It just seems that the only purpose they serve is to filibuster everything Obama and the Democratic party tries to pass. They're even opposing plans they support. My guess is that they want to make it seem like Obama is getting nothing done.

 

Now that the Senate has 41 Republican members, GOP can literally stop all legislation. It just pisses me off to no end that Republicans think that being total [bleep]s will get them elected into office, when all they're really doing is going against what the majority of the American public wants.

 

Also, FOX News sucks, too.

 

Discuss.

 

And you're surprised by this? Bipartisanship is dead here too. I don't even know if it was alive in the first place. The party in opposition will alway oppose the ruling party's actions and make them seem unreasonable, no matter how stupid it is to do so. It's just the nature of politics.

 

 

QFT

 

 

Bipartisanship never existed imo.

[Perakp]

I didn't know what GOP meant before I read this

 

 

Am not really interested in american politics, but I still think Obama was the right choice.

[OldJoe]

Heh. Voting against the other party just because they are your rivals happens often.

Like in my country, a local politician (S) said that they'll never vote for something that SD puts forward, even if it's good. Reason? Reason is because they are a party that will make it into the government this year (thus stealing seats) and because they raise questions that no other party does.

 

And why does FOX suck? The majority of all media in west are left.

[Rebdragon]

Try this on a non-liberal forum. I [bleep]ing dare you.

[sees_all1]

I'm sorry, but the democrats had a 60 vote super majority, they could have rammed through any piece of super partisan legislation they wanted, and I mean ANYTHING, and yet you're still blaming the other party?

Not only could they have passed whatever legislation, but they have majorities in the house, and they've got a liberal in the white house.

 

Don't blame the other party for the "gridlock" - its the dem's own fault for not passing legislation.

 

 

Sure you can blame the GOP now, but you literally had a year to do anything your party pleased. Sounds like you need a better whip.

The founding fathers designed congress to gridlock so that one party couldn't pass legislation all willy-nilly. Thank God that gridlock is now back in place. GF dems.

[meol]

I'm honestly curious about this. Did these Founding Misters really design a two-party system where politics would be bound to be polarised?

[Grim_]

To the best of my knowledge the founding fathers (at least in america) did not design it to be a two party system. While I may be wrong there is no mention of the number of parties (aside from I think there has to be more than one) in the constitution or any other legal documents. My guess is that this system sort of happened off of two parties getting large amounts of funding and telling people what they want to hear.

[SeanyTheSailor]

Sometimes I wonder why people even post political threads, not one has ever changed my opinion on anything, and it all comes down to just hating the other party, we think you're stupid, you think we're stupid. Also just try to think, you are pissed off that the Republicans can block anything now, imagine how pissed off they were when the Democrats could pass anything they wanted.

[Nom]

To the best of my knowledge the founding fathers (at least in america) did not design it to be a two party system. While I may be wrong there is no mention of the number of parties (aside from I think there has to be more than one) in the constitution or any other legal documents. My guess is that this system sort of happened off of two parties getting large amounts of funding and telling people what they want to hear.

 

As a matter of fact many of them explicitly warned against "factions," i.e. political parties. Probably because they figured something like what we have now would happen. Smart dudes.

[Alg]

From what I'm seeing the Dems aren't really doing anything about it though. Other than complaining about it to each other, that is.

It's a game that one side is playing much better than the other, but the other refuses to adapt.

 

Or at least that's the way it seems over here.

[SeanyTheSailor]

To the best of my knowledge the founding fathers (at least in america) did not design it to be a two party system. While I may be wrong there is no mention of the number of parties (aside from I think there has to be more than one) in the constitution or any other legal documents. My guess is that this system sort of happened off of two parties getting large amounts of funding and telling people what they want to hear.

 

As a matter of fact many of them explicitly warned against "factions," i.e. political parties. Probably because they figured something like what we have now would happen. Smart dudes.

On the note of a 2 party system, our government wasn't crafted to be one and in George Washington's farewell address he warned against political parties. If I recall correctly the 2-party system really formed under Andrew Jackson with the Democratic-Republican party and the Whig party. Normally I'm pretty good with history but this is kinda foggy so if someone has the facts to prove me otherwise by all means do so.

[PoorLepRecon]

I'm honestly curious about this. Did these Founding Misters really design a two-party system where politics would be bound to be polarised?

 

 

Hell, Washington tried to avoid a two-party system. In his farewell address he warned of the effects of a two party system, but the country was already headed in that direction when John Adams took over the presidency.

 

Bills were never meant to be rushed through Congress. The Health Care debate needs to be debated until each side can agree on it, rather than forcing legislation through as fast as they can while they have the numbers.

[meb]

Both parties are [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]ed. Comes with the territory of a two-party system.

In Belgium we have so many parties that socialists and liberals have to form coalitions. I'd prefer a 2 party system over our mix of like 10. You guys have 2 sides fighting while we have 3 sides debating over freakin' language laws nobody cares about except other politicians.

[Hawks]

Google Obama's most recent approval rating. It's down to (if you estimate on the high side) 57%. And at least 65% of Americans don't want this healthcare crap. Honestly. I saw this on Fox the other day (they were using CNN or MSNBC's stats) and laughed, because it's the people who are biased towards him who are saying this. (Proof: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34451672/ns/politics-white_house/ )

 

And to above. The Dems could have shoved anything they wanted to through Congress. And they wouldn't have read it either.

 

Obama said he wanted 'transparency' in his presidency; no closed-door meetings, all legislature posted online for 48-72 prior to the vote. What is there now? Closed-door meetings with NO GOP whatsoever and bills that NO ONE has read.

[Lenticular_J]

Try this on a non-liberal forum. I [bleep]ing dare you.

This is the internet. No such thing.