The single reason for Liberating Iraq was WMDs.. what was single reason for ACA?

[rightwinger]

why the right wants people to die without care is beyond me

Why did Congress take what seemed to be a good idea
and create a 2000+ page nightmare.

Some on the left even admitted they had no idea what was in the damm thing.
And I bet that number is much higher.
I bet that most of them don't know for the most part what this thing is exactly.

More rightwing misinformation

The reason nobody knew what was in the final bill was because there was no final bill. When Pelosi made her famous statement, she was referring to the fact that there was a House and Senate Healthcare bill and the final bill would be a combination of the two

 

[dblack]

A single reason?

. We don't want to let em die

Wrong. You're perfectly willing to let them die if you can't force the rest of us to pay for their healthcare.

You Pay for healthcare for people who could not buy it themselves. Your alternative is to let them die

The point is, being unwilling to force others to pay isn't the same thing as being willing to let people die. Nothing is stopping you and I (and anyone else who wants to) from helping people in need. What you're arguing for is ganging up on those who don't and forcing them to help.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False analogy. Iraq was wrong, period. All know that. You have to come up with onre reason for why ACA is wrong. Go for it.

EVERYONE KNOWS there was ONLY ONE reason for liberating Iraq was WMDs.. RIGHT?
Since there were none found then the Liberation was not necessary.

Therefore we need ONE simple reason for Obamacare being passed?

What major reason did Obamacare PASS by ONLY 6 votes?

Those Congress members passed Obamacare primarily and for what major reason?

Please tell me what single major reason was Obamacare passed?

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong. You're perfectly willing to let them die if you can't force the rest of us to pay for their healthcare.

You Pay for healthcare for people who could not buy it themselves. Your alternative is to let them die

The point is, being unwilling to force others to pay isn't the same thing as being willing to let people die. Nothing is stopping you and I (and anyone else who wants to) from helping people in need. What you're arguing for is ganging up on those who don't and forcing them to help.

A society doesn't function like that. You don't get to chose to send your money to invade Iraq instead of buying healthcare for the needy

You elect your representatives and they decide what is in the best interests of the General Welfare of We the People

 

[dblack]

False analogy. Iraq was wrong, period. All know that. You have to come up with onre reason for why ACA is wrong. Go for it.

Only one? Let's see... so many to choose from...

Let's start with the fact that it takes away the most fundamental right a consumer has.

If you want more, just ask ...

 

[dblack]

A society doesn't function like that. You don't get to chose to send your money to invade Iraq instead of buying healthcare for the needy

You elect your representatives and they decide what is in the best interests of the General Welfare of We the People

Right, but their power to make those decisions is not unlimited. The point of constitutionally government is that they are only allowed to use the coercive power of government when it is truly necessary. In both cases under discussion - the Iraq war, and Health insurance reform - it is not necessary.

 

[Synthaholic]

A society doesn't function like that. You don't get to chose to send your money to invade Iraq instead of buying healthcare for the needy

You elect your representatives and they decide what is in the best interests of the General Welfare of We the People

Right, but their power to make those decisions is not unlimited. The point of constitutionally government is that they are only allowed to use the coercive power of government when it is truly necessary. In both cases under discussion - the Iraq war, and Health insurance reform - it is not necessary.

It's Constitutional at the state level (Romneycare) and it's been ruled Constitutional at the Federal level (ACA).

Wingnuts are now arguing that it's a tax: taxes have been reaffirmed as Constitutional countless times.

More FAIL.

 

[dblack]

A society doesn't function like that. You don't get to chose to send your money to invade Iraq instead of buying healthcare for the needy

You elect your representatives and they decide what is in the best interests of the General Welfare of We the People

Right, but their power to make those decisions is not unlimited. The point of constitutionally government is that they are only allowed to use the coercive power of government when it is truly necessary. In both cases under discussion - the Iraq war, and Health insurance reform - it is not necessary.

It's Constitutional at the state level (Romneycare) and it's been ruled Constitutional at the Federal level (ACA).

Wingnuts are now arguing that it's a tax: taxes have been reaffirmed as Constitutional countless times.

More FAIL.

It's not "fail", it's opinion, dumbass. In my opinion, the court was wrong - and so are any states that violate their citizens rights with this shit. Enslaving us to the insurance industry is not protecting our freedom, and we should never grant government that power.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are entitled to your opinion and dislike of the laws.

However, as a member of the American social compact, you must respect the constitutional electoral process that produced these laws, while you work against them.

Right, but their power to make those decisions is not unlimited. The point of constitutionally government is that they are only allowed to use the coercive power of government when it is truly necessary. In both cases under discussion - the Iraq war, and Health insurance reform - it is not necessary.

It's Constitutional at the state level (Romneycare) and it's been ruled Constitutional at the Federal level (ACA).

Wingnuts are now arguing that it's a tax: taxes have been reaffirmed as Constitutional countless times.

More FAIL.

It's not "fail", it's opinion, dumbass. In my opinion, the court was wrong - and so are any states that violate their citizens rights with this shit. Enslaving us to the insurance industry is not protecting our freedom, and we should never grant government that power.

 

[Synthaholic]

Right, but their power to make those decisions is not unlimited. The point of constitutionally government is that they are only allowed to use the coercive power of government when it is truly necessary. In both cases under discussion - the Iraq war, and Health insurance reform - it is not necessary.

It's Constitutional at the state level (Romneycare) and it's been ruled Constitutional at the Federal level (ACA).

Wingnuts are now arguing that it's a tax: taxes have been reaffirmed as Constitutional countless times.

More FAIL.

It's not "fail", it's opinion, dumbass. In my opinion, the court was wrong - and so are any states that violate their citizens rights with this shit. Enslaving us to the insurance industry is not protecting our freedom, and we should never grant government that power.

Goody for you. And tough shit. Don't like it? Move to a country with no society to contribute to. Like Somalia.

"Enslaving".

 

[dblack]

It's Constitutional at the state level (Romneycare) and it's been ruled Constitutional at the Federal level (ACA).

Wingnuts are now arguing that it's a tax: taxes have been reaffirmed as Constitutional countless times.

More FAIL.

It's not "fail", it's opinion, dumbass. In my opinion, the court was wrong - and so are any states that violate their citizens rights with this shit. Enslaving us to the insurance industry is not protecting our freedom, and we should never grant government that power.

Goody for you. And tough shit. Don't like it? Move to a country with no society to contribute to. Like Somalia.

"Enslaving".

Nah.. my plan is to stay here and fuck up the ACA as much as possible.

 

[Stephanie]

It's Constitutional at the state level (Romneycare) and it's been ruled Constitutional at the Federal level (ACA).

Wingnuts are now arguing that it's a tax: taxes have been reaffirmed as Constitutional countless times.

More FAIL.

It's not "fail", it's opinion, dumbass. In my opinion, the court was wrong - and so are any states that violate their citizens rights with this shit. Enslaving us to the insurance industry is not protecting our freedom, and we should never grant government that power.

Goody for you. And tough shit. Don't like it? Move to a country with no society to contribute to. Like Somalia.

"Enslaving".

You not don't care this law makes people a slave to the Federal Government, but you are the perfect Progressive USEFUL tool

be proud

 

[rightwinger]

It's not "fail", it's opinion, dumbass. In my opinion, the court was wrong - and so are any states that violate their citizens rights with this shit. Enslaving us to the insurance industry is not protecting our freedom, and we should never grant government that power.

Goody for you. And tough shit. Don't like it? Move to a country with no society to contribute to. Like Somalia.

"Enslaving".

You not don't care this law makes people a slave to the Federal Government, but you are the perfect Progressive USEFUL tool

be proud

Healthcare makes you a slave now?

 

[dblack]

Goody for you. And tough shit. Don't like it? Move to a country with no society to contribute to. Like Somalia.

"Enslaving".

You not don't care this law makes people a slave to the Federal Government, but you are the perfect Progressive USEFUL tool

be proud

Healthcare makes you a slave now?

Is that really what you think this is? Healthcare?

It's not. It's insurance. ACA dictates that we spend our entire lives making payments to the insurance industry - or be punished for our 'insolence'. How in the hell did we let them do that???

 

[Liability]

EVERYONE KNOWS there was ONLY ONE reason for liberating Iraq was WMDs.. RIGHT?
Since there were none found then the Liberation was not necessary.

Therefore we need ONE simple reason for Obamacare being passed?

What major reason did Obamacare PASS by ONLY 6 votes?

Those Congress members passed Obamacare primarily and for what major reason?

Please tell me what single major reason was Obamacare passed?

There was NEVER a "single" reason to liberate Iraq; there were ALWAYS a litany of reasons.

 

[rightwinger]

You not don't care this law makes people a slave to the Federal Government, but you are the perfect Progressive USEFUL tool

be proud

Healthcare makes you a slave now?

Is that really what you think this is? Healthcare?

It's not. It's insurance. ACA dictates that we spend our entire lives making payments to the insurance industry - or be punished for our 'insolence'. How in the hell did we let them do that???

If it was up to me we wouldn't have insurance companies. We would cut out the greedy middle man and go directly to universal healthcare.

But given that we have shackled ourselves to the Health Insurance monster, if you don't have insurance, you don't have healthcare

The days of going to your family doctor and paying with a chicken are long gone. You don't have the money, you are out of luck

 

[dblack]

Healthcare makes you a slave now?

Is that really what you think this is? Healthcare?

It's not. It's insurance. ACA dictates that we spend our entire lives making payments to the insurance industry - or be punished for our 'insolence'. How in the hell did we let them do that???

If it was up to me we wouldn't have insurance companies. We would cut out the greedy middle man and go directly to universal healthcare.

But given that we have shackled ourselves to the Health Insurance monster, if you don't have insurance, you don't have healthcare

The days of going to your family doctor and paying with a chicken are long gone. You don't have the money, you are out of luck

That is so painful to read, because it is so, so wrong. Health care is not the same thing as health insurance. Buying into that fallacy is exactly what painted us into this corner in the first place. We need less insurance, not more - only for the catastrophes we could never hope to pay for on our own. We CAN and should cut out the middle man - buy simply minimizing our use of insurance. Or at least we could have, before ACA. Now that opportunity is gone. ACA cements the insurance industry's dominant position in law. Congress sold us out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Proud of your excited hyperbole, Steph? Enslaving? Get real, huh.

It's not "fail", it's opinion, dumbass. In my opinion, the court was wrong - and so are any states that violate their citizens rights with this shit. Enslaving us to the insurance industry is not protecting our freedom, and we should never grant government that power.

Goody for you. And tough shit. Don't like it? Move to a country with no society to contribute to. Like Somalia.

"Enslaving".

You not don't care this law makes people a slave to the Federal Government, but you are the perfect Progressive USEFUL tool

be proud

 

[peach174]

The new Health Care Act is about complete control by the Government.
Proof is what Sebelius just did with the welfare reform, done by both parties in the ninety's signed into law by President Clinton.
She just over rode that law and did her own law by making those on welfare not having to do any work for getting their welfare checks. Never mind that it has been working very well ever since Sept. of 1996.
Personal Responsiblity and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
It has absolutely nothing to do with health care. It's all about their political agenda.

 

[Liability]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

[[Page 116 STAT. 1502]]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

-- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

Doesn't look like just one single reason to me.