• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

It passed by a majority in the House and super majority in the Senate after months and months of back and forth. If anyone didn't know what was in it they were simply too lazy to read it.

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." - Nancy Pelosi

Yeah, they knew exactly what they were passing.
 
The fact that Obamacare has to travel to the Supreme Court where nine justices who are liberated from democratic constraints will sit on their thrones and decide what is the law is or is not is what is wrong with this country.

No one should be forced to buy a product from the for profit insurance industry. This is most ironic and hypocritical since the for profit insurance industry was lambasted by Obama and his army of liberal progressives. What did they do? They delivered tens of millions of new customers to the industry that they lambasted. Having the President (and potentially nine supreme court justice) declare that Americans are forced to buy insurance products is tyrannical, not liberating.

It should never come to this; where this decision rest upon nine supreme court judges. Americans should have the freedom and liberty to not buy a product from a for profit company. Unfortunately, we need to debate this issue and take it all the way to the Supreme Court, where it become a gamble rather than a practice in the Constitution.

The biggest gamble is the legal precedent in which this ruling can set. The last thing we need is more corporate lobbyist using their resources to persuade politicians to force Americans to buy their products.
 
Last edited:
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." - Nancy Pelosi

Yeah, they knew exactly what they were passing.

That's a typical rightwing argument: you take a poorly phrased statement completely out of context and then try to use it as a foundation for your entire argument.

If you look at the actual context of the statement it couldn't be more ironic. She was addressing the National Association of Counties -- not Congress. And the full sentence was, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it away from the fog of the controversy." In other words, what she was saying is that you guys will really like this bill once you see what it does for you and all of the partisan bull**** that's been spewed about it fades into the background.

What she clearly was not doing was telling Congress that they should pass the bill without knowing what was in it.

But that is exactly what Fox/Rush/Hannity et al have endlessly drilled into your head, so it's what you believe.
 
That's a typical rightwing argument: you take a poorly phrased statement completely out of context and then try to use it as a foundation for your entire argument.

If you look at the actual context of the statement it couldn't be more ironic. She was addressing the National Association of Counties -- not Congress. And the full sentence was, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it away from the fog of the controversy." In other words, what she was saying is that you guys will really like this bill once you see what it does for you and all of the partisan bull**** that's been spewed about it fades into the background.

What she clearly was not doing was telling Congress that they should pass the bill without knowing what was in it.

But that is exactly what Fox/Rush/Hannity et al have endlessly drilled into your head, so it's what you believe.

The bill was rammed down our throats. It is full of earmarks. It is statements like Pelosi that seems to be the rederick of the Democrats. Listen to our president talk about the current jobs bill. Just pass it...no one needs to read anything on the president's agenda.
 
The bill was rammed down our throats. It is full of earmarks. It is statements like Pelosi that seems to be the rederick of the Democrats. Listen to our president talk about the current jobs bill. Just pass it...no one needs to read anything on the president's agenda.

You've been thoroughly brainwashed.
 
You've been thoroughly brainwashed.

Many have. They deny not only the months it was discussed and debated, but years of such debate and argument. They also ignore that a vast major want many of the benefits, even if they complain about any reasonable way to pay for it. They also swollow much of the misinformation put out by people who are more willing to be angry then they are to listen and learn.
 
That's a typical rightwing argument: you take a poorly phrased statement completely out of context and then try to use it as a foundation for your entire argument.


Please then, because I want the full context, put it in context for us, and tell us how this is unreasonable to think that Pelosi was saying don't read it, just pass it.

j-mac
 
Many have. They deny not only the months it was discussed and debated, but years of such debate and argument. They also ignore that a vast major want many of the benefits, even if they complain about any reasonable way to pay for it. They also swollow much of the misinformation put out by people who are more willing to be angry then they are to listen and learn.

That is dishonest Joe. Debate, and discussion on ever changing provisions of this 2200 page monstrosity was not the final bill, and you damned well know it.

j-mac
 
Please then, because I want the full context, put it in context for us, and tell us how this is unreasonable to think that Pelosi was saying don't read it, just pass it.

j-mac

If you quoted my entire post you would have your answer.
 
That is dishonest Joe. Debate, and discussion on ever changing provisions of this 2200 page monstrosity was not the final bill, and you damned well know it.

j-mac

Nonsense j. You're just drinking the koolaid. This is an old issue and there was months of debate. Only when republicans made it clear they wanted no part of actually accomplishing anythign did it move forward with them. I'm sorry you choose to believe falsehoods. I can't help you with that.
 
Nonsense j. You're just drinking the koolaid. This is an old issue and there was months of debate. Only when republicans made it clear they wanted no part of actually accomplishing anythign did it move forward with them. I'm sorry you choose to believe falsehoods. I can't help you with that.

Then why did the bill final version never appear for its 72 hour available review online like Obama promised, and why was it passed in the middle of the night....yeah, really above board.

j-mac
 
Then why did the bill final version never appear for its 72 hour available review online like Obama promised, and why was it passed in the middle of the night....yeah, really above board.

j-mac

Why was it passed in the middle of the night?
Why does it matter what time it was passed?
 
Then why did the bill final version never appear for its 72 hour available review online like Obama promised, and why was it passed in the middle of the night....yeah, really above board.

j-mac

J, what time of night was it posted? And what exactly was in it no one had a clue about? Please, be serious.
 
J, what time of night was it posted? And what exactly was in it no one had a clue about? Please, be serious.

Your memory is short Joe...

When then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised not to sign major legislation until it had been posted on the Internet for public reading at least five days, trusting voters took him at his word. Now they know better. Not only is the actual language of what is likely to become the main legislative vehicle for Obama's signature health care reform not available on the Internet, it hasn't been given to members of the key Senate committees or the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), either. All that is available to those worried about a massive government takeover of our health care system is a 262-page description of the bill's provisions. Bill descriptions mean nothing and bind nobody.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: No, you can't see the health care bill | Examiner Editorial | Editorials | Washington Examiner


j-mac
 
So you can't...As I thought the 'out of context' meme is Bull Shat!

j-mac

Adams post #128

<That's a typical rightwing argument: you take a poorly phrased statement completely out of context and then try to use it as a foundation for your entire argument.

If you look at the actual context of the statement it couldn't be more ironic. She was addressing the National Association of Counties -- not Congress. And the full sentence was, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it away from the fog of the controversy." In other words, what she was saying is that you guys will really like this bill once you see what it does for you and all of the partisan bull**** that's been spewed about it fades into the background.

What she clearly was not doing was telling Congress that they should pass the bill without knowing what was in it.

But that is exactly what Fox/Rush/Hannity et al have endlessly drilled into your head, so it's what you believe. >


The part of post #128 that you quoted.


Originally Posted by AdamT

<That's a typical rightwing argument: you take a poorly phrased statement completely out of context and then try to use it as a foundation for your entire argument. >


You quote one ****en paragraph:roll:


Note the bolded part? Seems to me anyone with a couple of brain cells coulda figured that one out.:shock:
 
Your memory is short Joe...




j-mac

J, this doesn't match your claim.

BTW, how accurate is the Washington Examiner? I'm unfamilar with them. Have anything more recognizable? Smoehting not an editorial?
 
J, this doesn't match your claim.

BTW, how accurate is the Washington Examiner? I'm unfamilar with them. Have anything more recognizable? Smoehting not an editorial?

The point is that the HC bill was fluid until the night it was rammed through. Things were being changed daily. To the point that CBO couldn't accurately score the thing, and congress couldn't read it prior to the vote...Remember this?



j-mac
 
J, he wasn't going to read it before. Republicans made clear, there was nothing they would sign onto except complete surrender. This went on for a long time. All over the summer. Hell, the issue is years old. The only thing new was Obama going so far as to adopt republicna ideas in an effort to try and coax them into particiaption. They said no way.
 
J, he wasn't going to read it before. Republicans made clear, there was nothing they would sign onto except complete surrender. This went on for a long time. All over the summer. Hell, the issue is years old. The only thing new was Obama going so far as to adopt republicna ideas in an effort to try and coax them into particiaption. They said no way.

Republicans said no because they were locked out of the crafting of the bill.

j-mac
 
Republicans said no because they were locked out of the crafting of the bill.

j-mac

J, that wasn't until later, after they had already shown they would not help. There is no reasonable way you can argue that republicans wanted to be part of this. From the misinformation they put out to the oppose anythign Obama mentality, from the begining, they refuse to participate.
 
J, that wasn't until later, after they had already shown they would not help. There is no reasonable way you can argue that republicans wanted to be part of this. From the misinformation they put out to the oppose anythign Obama mentality, from the begining, they refuse to participate.


If by "help" and "participate" you mean sheepishly agree to anything that Obama and demo's want then yes, you're right they didn't help. But see this is the problem of the liberal mindset. Negotiation means agree with you. In the real world that is false.

j-mac
 
If by "help" and "participate" you mean sheepishly agree to anything that Obama and demo's want then yes, you're right they didn't help. But see this is the problem of the liberal mindset. Negotiation means agree with you. In the real world that is false.

j-mac

No, I mean don't say oppose anything from Obama is our strategy. I mean stop with the misinformation. I mean actually make real suggestions and try to be a part of it. Don't you remember when this was pointed out to you at the time?
 
No, I mean don't say oppose anything from Obama is our strategy. I mean stop with the misinformation. I mean actually make real suggestions and try to be a part of it. Don't you remember when this was pointed out to you at the time?

Yep, it was a lie then, as it is now...Thanks for playin.....night Joe.
 
Yep, it was a lie then, as it is now...Thanks for playin.....night Joe.

I know that's what you tell yourself j. But, links were given, it was well documented. Time doesn't change that.

But, good night, sleep well.
 
Back
Top Bottom