Until We Find ONE WMD in Iraq, Republicans Should Really Calm Down About “Obamacare"

Having failed to kill the Affordable Care Act in Congress by shutting down the government the opposition is currently taking delight in charging the president with lying to the public when he said anyone who likes their current healthcare plan will be able to keep it under the new law.

If you are one of the estimated 2 million Americans whose health insurance plans may have been cancelled this month, you should not be blaming President Obama or the Affordable Care Act.
It turns out that some people in the individual care market – about 5 percent of the overall insurance market -- are having their insurance policies cancelled.

It is estimated that half of those folks will get better coverage for a lower price. Some people will even get subsidies to help them pay the lower price.

But some people losing their current policies [and being offered better coverage] are going to have to pay a higher price. Taking crocodile tears to a new level, ObamaCare opponents are now rushing to their defense and calling the president a liar.

These critics include Republican politicians who did not vote for ObamaCare; these are Republican governors who refuse to set up exchanges to reach their own citizens; these are people oppose expanding Medicaid to help poor people getting better health care; these are people who have never put any proposal on the table as an alternative fix for the nation’s costly health care system that leaves tens of millions with inadequate medical coverage and tens of millions more totally uninsured.

The fact is if you are one of the estimated 2 million Americans whose health insurance plans may have been cancelled this month, you should not be blaming President Obama or the Affordable Care Act.

You should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health care.

Let me put it more bluntly: your insurance companies have been taking advantage of you and the Affordable Care Act puts in place consumer protection and tells them to stop abusing people.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...ama-or-aca-blame-america-insurance-companies/
 
A veiled threat to the US??????????????????????????????? Are you retarded or what? You, bitch....you. Not the US. I was addressing your tired and poor ass. You're not the fucking US. So stop trying to create drama where there is none. Bitch, no one cares what you do. You are one person...and the others that think like your stupid ass are a distinct minority. You don't matter. So twist, spin, gyrate, or masturbate. No one gives a good fuck. You're not anymore the entire US than I am. Obamacare was voted into law, and sanctioned by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. You have a problem with the Constitution, then you're the enemy of the state, not me. And you're completely incompetent. If the 2nd amendment is repealed and all guns banned, then the market will dry up. I'm against guns, having been a victim of gun violence. My right. My prerogative. So eat it. You're as far from being a poet as the Earth is to Alpha Centauri. LOL

Is the Mayor of Houston going to shun you again this year, or maybe you just weren't invited?
 
No, he didn't. It's been explained ad infinitum.

Obama did and still does. Repeatedly and on many different issues.

yes he did.

to claim a total absence of doubt surrounding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's when he knew full well that doubt did, in fact, exist, is a lie.
 
yes he did.

to claim a total absence of doubt surrounding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's when he knew full well that doubt did, in fact, exist, is a lie.

And your proof that they did not exist at the time he said they did is what?

And this proof was put forth by whom?
 
And your proof that they did not exist at the time he said they did is what?

And this proof was put forth by whom?

that is not the issue. the issue is the assertion of a total absence of doubt about their existence. To make that assertion knowing of the doubts that did exist is a lie.
 
I am not implying anything about unanimity of belief on the part of the American people. But when the president speaks, he speaks for the office and not his own personally held beliefs unless he so clarifies.

THERE IS NO DOUBT means something substantively different than I HAVE NO DOUBT. For you to willfully refuse to acknowledge that fact shows either your incredible stupidity or your blind partisan love for the former president. Which is it?


So, when Obama said, "If you like your healthcare plane, you can keep it, period".....he was speaking for the office of the president of the US and not his
own personally held belief.....

So you're saying the "office of the president" lied and Obama....and because he was 'speaking FOR the office of president' we can't assume he actually
held that belief "personally"......???????????????????
Its the office that lied ......

Do you see how stupid and convoluted your own logic is ?

Every man speaks for his personally held beliefs .... it can be no other way.....
------------------------------------------
Obama today...Press conference...

"There is no doubt that our failure to roll out the ACA smoothly has put a burden on Democrats, whether they're running or not, etc...."...Obama

"With respect to the pledge I made that if you like your plan you can keep it, I think -- you know, and I've said in interviews -- that there is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate. ".....Obama


Is Obama speaking for someone other than himself....did he really say "that there is no doubt that the way etc. etc." previously, in interviews.....

Thats exactly what that direct quote from todays press conference says, literally....

Are you parsing along with me Pedro ?

and now the statement of fact said unequivocally, "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, period"....magically becomes a pledge....

So its quite easy to twist and spin and parse the words of others to make their words mean something other than what they obviously meant when they were first uttered.
We can all do it...if we all wanted to be obnoxious partisan hacks, but we all don't want that, do we....
 
Last edited:
that is not the issue. the issue is the assertion of a total absence of doubt about their existence. To make that assertion knowing of the doubts that did exist is a lie.

So you did what? A brain scan of the president to determine his doubt level?
 
And, just for giggles, the presence of the uranium was another violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General discussed in paragraph 9 (b) above; to accept, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above; and to accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance with these undertakings;

13. Requests the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, through the Secretary-General, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary-General in paragraph 9 (b) above, to carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's nuclear capabilities based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission; to develop a plan for submission to the Security Council within forty-five days calling for the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items listed in paragraph 12 above; to carry out the plan within forty-five days following approval by the Security Council; and to develop a plan, taking into account the rights and obligations of Iraq under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance with paragraph 12 above, including an inventory of all nuclear material in Iraq subject to the Agency's verification and inspections to confirm that Agency safeguards cover all relevant nuclear activities in Iraq, to be submitted to the Security Council for approval within one hundred and twenty days of the passage of the present resolution;

14. Takes note that the actions to be taken by Iraq in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the present resolution represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons;
 
So you did what? A brain scan of the president to determine his doubt level?

He didn't say "I have no doubt"... he said "THERE is no doubt". the former is the assertion of an opinion, the latter a statement of fact. There was plenty of doubt in the Bush administration's intelligence community about whether Saddam actually had any stockpiles of anything.

Come on... this is early college level english comp... is it really over your head?
 
Saddam had weapons grade uranium?

link please?

Saddam didn't have enough oil and needed to develop a nuclear power program?

link please?

The ceasefire agreement said he could not amass the materials needed to develop a nuclear weapon. Do you have any plausible explanation why he would have acquired several hundred tons of uranium?

Was he developing a nuclear clock or something?
 
Saddam didn't have enough oil and needed to develop a nuclear power program?

link please?

The ceasefire agreement said he could not amass the materials needed to develop a nuclear weapon. Do you have any plausible explanation why he would have acquired several hundred tons of uranium?

Was he developing a nuclear clock or something?

your own link said he could not possess nuclear weapons usable material. natural uranium is not nuclear weapons usable material. sorry.
 
you don't know the difference between a statement of fact and an assertion of an opinion? really?

Yeah, I know the difference. Do you?

Is; "If you like your health insurance you can keep it. Period."

... supposed to be some sort of opinion?
 
Back
Top