It was highly touted as ''free'' when they pushed it through, but you knew that right ?

dubleuhb wrote:

No, it was touted as "affordable healthcare". You thinking of the "read my lips, no new taxes" speach.

Brewha wrote:

No, it was touted as "affordable healthcare". You thinking of the "read my lips, no new taxes" speach.

Brewha wrote:

No argument. If fact I admire the style of it and agree.

Careful Mr. Fenst, people might start calling you an altruist . . . .

Brewha wrote:

Such game changing legislation should have been openly debated. It should have at a minimum had bi-party support. Something this like this should have had broad support. Instead it was passed on a party line vote without the opposition even having the oppurtunity to read the bill.

Abrignac wrote:

And of course the GOP would never use their "political capital" to push through legislation. They are above "dirty tricks" like shutting the government down when their MINORITY does not get their way . . . . Right, I see your point.

Are you floating the idea that this legislation was never openly debated??? And that having won the election with this issue in hand, the administration was "unfair" in inacting what they were elected to do?

Brewha wrote:

Brewha you watch the link? Post 3

ZRX1200 wrote:

Such game changing legislation should have been openly debated. It should have at a minimum had bi-party support. Something this like this should have had broad support. Instead it was passed on a party line vote without the opposition even having the oppurtunity to read the bill.

Abrignac wrote:

Brewha the fatal flaw in your post is the assumption that I am Republican. I'm not. Nor am I a Democrat. I'm an American from South Louisiana who is tired of a two party system that is more about beating each other than it is about doing the job set forth in the Consitution.

If you're implying that this legislation was openly debated then you're either living in a dream or you just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. Have you nothing better to do?

Abrignac wrote:

Dude,,,

you know the Regime implied to your uneducated masses and they inferred as much, that it would be free,,,,


wheel,

wheelrite wrote:

Since when are partyline legislative votes wrongful? Pretty much the way most votes are decided.

A minimum of bi-party support? Vague. What does that mean and why?

Since when does a law or program require anything more than a simple majority?

Enough of the complaints about needing more time to read the bill/law. It has been available for that long enough. It is the stupidest argument I have heard.

Cruz was on Meet the Press this morning and l think he was both disingenuous and an idiot for thinking his crap was convincing then.

rfenst wrote:

Brewha the fatal flaw in your post is the assumption that I am Republican. I'm not. Nor am I a Democrat. I'm an American from South Louisiana who is tired of a two party system that is more about beating each other than it is about doing the job set forth in the Consitution.

If you're implying that this legislation was openly debated then you're either living in a dream or you just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. Have you nothing better to do?

Abrignac wrote:

Since when are partyline legislative votes wrongful? Pretty much the way most votes are decided.

A minimum of bi-party support? Vague. What does that mean and why?

Since when does a law or program require anything more than a simple majority?

Enough of the complaints about needing more time to read the bill/law. It has been available for that long enough. It is the stupidest argument I have heard.

Cruz was on Meet the Press this morning and l think he was both disingenuous and an idiot for thinking his crap was convincing then.

rfenst wrote:

I think you have assumed whatever you think he assumed.

rfenst wrote:

Please tell me that you are not implying that is was ok to pass this mess before the bill was made available to ALL committee members who had sufficient time to digest it and consider its ramifications.

You're an attorney Robert. Surely you're not gonna go to trial when your clients case is to be decided on a 10,000 page before you have sufficient time to study it.

"We've got to pass this bill to see what's in it" ~ Nancy Pelosi

Abrignac wrote: