Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 7, 2013 13:52:24 GMT -5
Sissel v US Department of Health and Human Services is a case to watch here. Of course, the bill the Senate passed had technically passed the House first - HR 3590 began life there as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act (a revenue bill), and was 'amended' by the Senate to become the entirely different PPACA. This 'gut and amend' technique has never been litigated before the Supreme Court, although Daniel Smyth has a good scholarly take on its constitutionality here.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 7, 2013 14:19:21 GMT -5
Sissel v US Department of Health and Human Services is a case to watch here. Of course, the bill the Senate passed had technically passed the House first - HR 3590 began life there as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act (a revenue bill), and was 'amended' by the Senate to become the entirely different PPACA. This 'gut and amend' technique has never been litigated before the Supreme Court, although Daniel Smyth has a good scholarly take on its constitutionality here. The whole saga of this deceitfully passed law would be high comedy if it weren't for the disgusting fact that we have to deal with it. The Democrats have to argue that it's not a tax, except that to find it Constitutional they have to argue that it is a tax, but in order for it to be Constitutional, it can't be a tax, OR they have to argue that it's really the original bill, that they "amended" in order to slip it through along party lines using a questionable procedural vote. Ridiculous.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 7, 2013 14:24:04 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 7, 2013 14:47:39 GMT -5
The biggest winners of the Unaffordable healthcare act is: 1. the insurance companies 2. The healthcare hospital conglomerates. 3. The drug companies. 4. All corporations, whether large international or regional corporations. Not necessarily in that order. The big losers of this act. 1. The middle class citizens who have to come up with the premium fees. 2. retail and fast food industry due to loss of sales because the middle class have to pay the insurance premiums and have nop discretionary income left to spend. 3. Big oil, because they can no longer raise prices whenever they feel like it and stick it to the driving public. 4. State tax revenue, because the consumer has no money to spend, hence, decreasing sales tax revenue The top four sounds like a Republican conspiracy. The last four sound like a Democratic conspiracy. We all do know who is responsible. And it was not one Republican. i love how you very logically deduced that there was no political capital to be made, and then made it a partisan issue. that is a real talent.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 7, 2013 14:47:54 GMT -5
~ Barack Obama, January 12, 2011
He wasn't talking about Obamacare on that occasion, granted.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 7, 2013 14:49:22 GMT -5
Great post. Marvelous articulation of the facts. I especially liked your comparison of the hyperbole that "Bush lied, and people died" propaganda vs. the reality that Obama actually did lie, and people are dying now as a result. i see. so nobody died under Bush, but people are dying under Obama. have you tested your water supply?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 7, 2013 14:50:37 GMT -5
I find the combination of this with the stance on Obama's lie fascinating. you know, you really shouldn't. it was a separate point.That Obama lied, if I'm following the argument (not yours specifically, dj), is immaterial because Bush lied no, that was not the point at all. Paul used the phrase "unprecedented lie". my english is not the greatest, but i think that means that nothing like it has ever happened before in the history of mankind. my reply is: yes it has. it happens all the time. and sometimes, at GREAT human cost. so far, ObamaCare has not cost us anything (or paltry little). it goes into effect on 1/1/14. you can start tallying then. until then, i think i would prefer to recognize the very real, well documented, and hugely costly Bush lies, if it is all the same to you.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 7, 2013 15:16:52 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 7, 2013 15:24:07 GMT -5
the total cost of the Iraq war is estimated at $0.8T. are you claiming that this war was not sold to us on the basis of lies?
that makes a neat ratio of 1000:1. and you really think this is FALSE? amazing. i think i will step out for coffee and see if you can explain to ME why. otherwise, you might want to use your cute little picture as your new avatar.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 7, 2013 15:49:27 GMT -5
The cute little picture was a meta commentary, not a response.
I'm not going to respond to the points you raise because I reject the frame in which they are made.
I don't accept your notions of the costs, I don't accept your conflation of the pre-implementation costs of a program with the decade-long cost of a war, I don't accept your assignation of "lie," I don't accept your comparison of the respective responsibilities of Bush and Obama for their respective policies, I don't accept that Bush would for example have continued with Obamacare, as Obama continued with Bush-era "war on Terror" strategy (including indefinite detention at Gitmo), I don't accept that the popularity of Congress's decision on the Iraq War at the time is comparable to the popularity of Congress's decision on Obamacare at the time -- in short, I reject the entire frame.
I can stipulate to your definition of Saturn as a planet, and quibble with your designation of a banana as an herb, without finding it profitable to enter into debate with you as to the relative contraceptive merits of Saturn versus banana.
I think I can make a stronger case that Obama knowingly and repeatedly lied to the American people (we used to call that a "high crime") than you can that Bush did the same; and I can do so without implicating the Clintons, which you can't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 7, 2013 15:52:54 GMT -5
The cute little picture was a meta commentary, not a response. I'm not going to respond to the points you raise because I reject the frame in which they are made. and i am not going to be caught up in a speculative argument about what the NET cost of the bill MIGHT BE in the future. so, we are at a very pleasant empasse, and not a moment too soon. i am heading to O'Hare in 6 minutes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 7, 2013 15:59:05 GMT -5
I don't accept your assignation of "lie," it is a lie, no matter whether it is repeated or not. i am not saying Bush himself is a liar. he might just be a useful idiot. that is between him and God. but what is absolutely certain is that the whole WMD thing was, at it's very root, a lie. i would be astounded if you wanted me to "prove" that.I don't accept your comparison of the respective responsibilities of Bush and Obama for their respective policies Bush is far more responsible for the war than Obama is for Obamacare. an unwilling CIC = no war. period., I don't accept that Bush would for example have continued with Obamacare, as Obama continued with Bush-era "war on Terror" strategy (including indefinite detention at Gitmo), I don't accept that the popularity of Congress's decision on the Iraq War at the time is comparable to the popularity of Congress's decision on Obamacare at the time -- in short, I reject the entire frame. I can stipulate to your definition of Saturn as a planet, and quibble with your designation of a banana as an herb, without finding it profitable to enter into debate with you as to the relative contraceptive merits of Saturn versus banana. you know i love reducio ad absurdums, but this one really doesn't qualify, because we are relating things by cost, which is FAR more fungible, far more tangible, and far more practical a debate than banana contraception.I think I can make a stronger case that Obama knowingly and repeatedly lied to the American people (we used to call that a "high crime") than you can that Bush did the same; and I can do so without implicating the Clintons, which you can't. i think that both Bush and Obama are war criminals, so this is all "quibble" to me. this was about the relative criminality of ObamaCare and the war for me, however, not the relative criminality of lying.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 7, 2013 16:07:14 GMT -5
Not the cost, then?
Not the fact that Obama lied, then?
Not anything relevant to anything at all discussed elsewhere in the thread?
That would be why I'm not following you down the rabbit-hole.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 7, 2013 16:25:13 GMT -5
"I think I can make a stronger case that Obama knowingly and repeatedly lied to the American people (we used to call that a "high crime") than you can that Bush did the same;"
I have to admit confusion as to why some people are all up in arms that Obama lied. But then I never believed Bush was telling the truth about WMDs and I automatically took Obama's assertions with several large grains of salt. He doesn't control the insurance industry so how could he influence what they charge, what coverage they keep, etc. Of course it would have been better to put in the caveats, however, those who do and are upfront about potential problems rarely get whatever it is passed, so I'm not surprised he went the way he did.
So I'm missing whatever ultimate lie this is supposed to be. Not too long ago Credit card companies cried on how the 0% offers would be a distant memory and how they couldn't be profitable etc. And yet today I still read about YMers and their 0% credit offers. I could be dismayed these companies lied or I could just be as I am, un-surprised that it has turned out the way it has. Insurers are going into full panic mode just like the banks did with credit card reform. As time goes on and they realize for certain they didn't need to panic so much the premiums will adjust again. Hard for me to see this is a great lie given people were saying it wouldn't be true from probably the very first time he uttered it.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 7, 2013 16:30:37 GMT -5
The insouciance of this attitude is dismaying to me.
If the manifest fact of its lack of truth doesn't make it a lie, what makes a lie?
If it doesn't matter what our elected representatives tell us, why do we have elections?
You are advocating totalitarianism.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 7, 2013 16:49:49 GMT -5
"You are advocating totalitarianism."
How?
By saying that what he uttered was obviously not the full truth? That given pundits from day one pointed out the holes in what he said makes it hard for me to feel sorry for anyone who wants to pretend they were so hurt by this big lie? (Whatever in the heck it is. I don't even know. Is it you won't lose your insurance? Is it something else? IDK.)
There are shades of lying. I can say you look great in that or no you don't look fat and not mean it. That to me is not nearly as bad as lying to you on something you can not and will not verify on your own. The WMDs are in the latter class. Obama's not full truths are somewhere in the middle.
"If it doesn't matter what our elected representatives tell us, why do we have elections? "
What an extremely odd statement. We have elections for people to serve as our representatives. I don't remember anything requiring them to say the whole truth and nothing but the truth every single time about everything. Very few people could serve ever if not lying ever was a requirement of the job.
I don't get all the angst over this. I don't. Anyone with a lick of common sense would know the insurance companies would make their own choices after the bill passed. Its going to be ugly for awhile and then hopefully it will improve. I personally would have preferred single payer, but this is what got passed. I got screwed by the before and after of the CC bill. I lived. I have a feeling you'll live through this too. (Unless you really go off the deep end with the doom and gloom.)
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 7, 2013 17:07:45 GMT -5
What I'm trying to convey here is that, if it doesn't matter what a candidate says, there is no difference between candidates. If there is no difference between candidates, elections are a sham. If elections are a sham, the power is not with the people who vote - it is with the people who shape the behavior of elected representatives in office.
How can someone serve as your representative if, in your name, she does things you strongly oppose and she explicitly promised you she would not do? If your vote for her was predicated on the belief that she shared your strong opposition, and other candidates did not?
Is this clarifying the argument?
I flatly refuse to believe you were sitting there smugly since 2009, chucking to yourself at those dullards who actually believed what a sitting President told them. I honestly can't comprehend how you can believe healthcare reform will work when you openly state you disregard the claims that are made for it. That's incoherent.
It amounts to a literally blind faith in the State, supported by not only your own incurious acceptance of its pronouncements (the truth of which does not matter to you, apparently) but your apparent inability even to to understand this acceptance might be less than universal, or that in the abstract such uncritical acceptance of Statist power has unfortunate historical antecedents.
I admit it's possible that you really are blind to those implications, and you really don't think this or Benghazi or Fast and Furious or the IRS targeting political enemies of the President are big deals, and you really don't think the structural problems in our economy and our government are big deals, and you really don't think it's wrong for a President to lie, an appointed civil servant to abuse her authority, a government bureaucrat to decide for you what products you need to buy and from whom; all of that is possible, but, if true, you're an advocate of totalitarianism.
I don't think that's the case; I just can't square the circle of you shrugging this off and you not being a Statist thrall.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 7, 2013 17:10:49 GMT -5
He was categorically insistent. "You will not lose your insurance. Period." He was just as insistent after the law passed as before; just as insistent after the regulations were discussed in the Federal Register as before.
He was flatly inaccurate in his claim.
That is not a "misspeaking," as the New York Times has it. It is not a "not full truth." It is a lie.
How can you not understand that?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 7, 2013 17:18:16 GMT -5
This is a dangerously uninformed analysis.
I have cited studies which show that the top 5% of the pre-reform risk pool account for around 50% of all healthcare spending.
What PPACA does is sweep in all the people too risky for that risk pool, all of whom are likely to be more expensive. These are not risks - these are certain losses. There are not sufficient incentives to prevent adverse selection on a serious scale, which gives rise to a 'death spiral.' The only hope insurers have is to spike prices across the board and trust enough suckers glom on at the outset, because otherwise they go out of business and nobody has healthcare any more.
I happen to find persuasive the argument that this was always the intent: to exacerbate the healthcare crisis to the point where single-payer became palatable. But the cack-handed implementation of the program has imperiled that scheme, and any other predicated on the reform working even temporarily. It is a worse mess than you're appreciating at this point, I assure you.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 7, 2013 17:23:29 GMT -5
What did you think Hans Blix was doing out there? Vacationing?
And you're okay with that? "If he was honest about it, people would see it was a bad idea; I support his strategy of lying about his bad idea so we can all suffer the consequences of his bad idea." What?
The whole point of representative democracy is that our representatives debate the merits of policies before they codify them into law. Otherwise, we might as well just anoint a Kingpriest to pronounce his wise judgements on us all and save a couple trillion dollars a year.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 7, 2013 17:25:54 GMT -5
Phoenix, are getting ahead of yourself. Deal with my statements as they are and do not pretend you have any idea what I really believe. You are doing a very bad job so far in your suppositions. "What I'm trying to convey here is that, if it doesn't matter what a candidate says, there is no difference between candidates. If there is no difference between candidates, elections are a sham." And you are making an argument that I wouldn't even make nor really discuss with any real interest. People are people. What they say is only part of the story. One needs to study what they say and do, then draw conclusions from that. Tenn needs to repost that turnip truck image if you really only ever believe what people say as absolute literal truth and disregard everything else. You would be a most unusual adult if you did so. There are no absolutely identical people, not even twins. There is always a difference in people and therefore at least some difference in any given two candidates. Now whether they actually act or govern on those differences, well we can only know from their prior records or actions after they are elected. I am dismayed as many are that Obama did not stop the war effort nor downgrade the Patriot act. Why he didn't, I don't know. (Given W and he did the same thing I wonder if there are folks in the Pentagon that have successfully sold fear to at least two recent Presidents and that's why things are the way they are.) The chain of beliefs in those two (quoted) sentences IMO is pretty faulty and worrisome. Get some sleep and eat chocolate and comfort food?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Nov 7, 2013 17:26:06 GMT -5
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 7, 2013 17:47:22 GMT -5
"I flatly refuse to believe you were sitting there smugly since 2009, chucking to yourself at those dullards who actually believed what a sitting President told them." I haven't had cable since early 2007, so effectively my only access to "TV" is when I search it out and play clips on my laptop which isn't all that often. So I haven't been listening all that much to what Obama has said. I didn't listen all that much either when W spoke on WMDs and was more dismayed more than anything that more and more people chose to believe him. The President does not control the insurance companies. He can't force them to keep policies unless we change our government to entirely new form. Why is that so hard to understand? I would have put in caveats to most of the stuff he's said, but then like I said politicians who do so never seem to make it to President, so its not surprising he's followed the precedents set by other Presidents before him and kept it to simple short unexplained sound bites. "I honestly can't comprehend how you can believe healthcare reform will work when you openly state you disregard the claims that are made for it." Hmmm. I missed the part where I said anything about healthcare reform working or not working. I've said very little about it, because I think no one really knows how it will play out. I do think the insurance companies are over-compensating upfront and will dial it down as time goes on. There is the possibility I am wrong of course. But there's also the possibility I am right on this.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 7, 2013 17:49:12 GMT -5
"What did you think Hans Blix was doing out there?" Ummm, checking and I believe he was one who said there was no credible threat.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 7, 2013 17:50:40 GMT -5
"38 days!"
??
Isn't January 2014 a little further away than 38 days?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 7, 2013 18:08:11 GMT -5
"As time goes on and they realize for certain they didn't need to panic so much the premiums will adjust again.
This is a dangerously uninformed analysis.
I have cited studies which show that the top 5% of the pre-reform risk pool account for around 50% of all healthcare spending.
What PPACA does is sweep in all the people too risky for that risk pool, all of whom are likely to be more expensive. These are not risks - these are certain losses. There are not sufficient incentives to prevent adverse selection on a serious scale, which gives rise to a 'death spiral.' The only hope insurers have is to spike prices across the board and trust enough suckers glom on at the outset, because otherwise they go out of business and nobody has healthcare any more.
I happen to find persuasive the argument that this was always the intent: to exacerbate the healthcare crisis to the point where single-payer became palatable. But the cack-handed implementation of the program has imperiled that scheme, and any other predicated on the reform "
If the goal is to head us to single payer, I'm OK with that. I don't care to be super informed on this. I haven't had medical insurance for over 8 1/2 years of the last decade. What's going to happen is going to happen whether I feel good, bad, or indifferent about it. Plus, unlike you I live from a philosophy that says in general things will work out. That when a problem is coming into focus, that the solution is coming into focus as well.
What the PPACA does is allow a whole group of people to opt in. Just because they can doesn't mean they actually will. Until people actually opt in or opt out and pay fines we can't know with any degree of certainity IMO how it will unfold. Medicare deals with the oldest and therefore in general the sickest of the population overall. Its not static. Policies change constantly. Unlike you I expect things will adjust to whatever the status quo becomes and then there will be a new status quo and another adjustment and so on.
Even though the law defines affordable as 9% of one's income won't make it so. Not all those folks who really need health care insurance will be able to afford it even with this law. Believe what you want. I don't expect a death spiral right away or possibly ever. (Why didn't Romneycare hit a death spiral if its inevitable?)
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 7, 2013 18:09:03 GMT -5
Thanks Wrongside. What if you don't have insurance?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 7, 2013 18:35:20 GMT -5
The cute little picture was a meta commentary, not a response. I'm not going to respond to the points you raise because I reject the frame in which they are made. I don't accept your notions of the costs, I don't accept your conflation of the pre-implementation costs of a program with the decade-long cost of a war, I don't accept your assignation of "lie," I don't accept your comparison of the respective responsibilities of Bush and Obama for their respective policies, I don't accept that Bush would for example have continued with Obamacare, as Obama continued with Bush-era "war on Terror" strategy (including indefinite detention at Gitmo), I don't accept that the popularity of Congress's decision on the Iraq War at the time is comparable to the popularity of Congress's decision on Obamacare at the time -- in short, I reject the entire frame. I can stipulate to your definition of Saturn as a planet, and quibble with your designation of a banana as an herb, without finding it profitable to enter into debate with you as to the relative contraceptive merits of Saturn versus banana. I think I can make a stronger case that Obama knowingly and repeatedly lied to the American people (we used to call that a "high crime") than you can that Bush did the same; and I can do so without implicating the Clintons, which you can't. Welcome to the boards. I like you already.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 7, 2013 18:45:31 GMT -5
"What did you think Hans Blix was doing out there?" Ummm, checking and I believe he was one who said there was no credible threat. That was his opinion. He was in charge of inspections which were to produce data. He was often obstructed, and thus didn't perform all the inspections and collect all the data due under the internationally agreed upon ceasefire; and he wasn't asked for his opinion. He was to supply data, and others would decide. Further, Bush didn't lie to go to war with Iraq. In fact, Bush didn't require Congressional approval at all because a state of war already existed between the United States and a coalition of allies, and the Iraqi regime. The only question was whether or not Saddam Hussein's continued obstruction, and feigning for his own reasons the possession of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons- a violation of the ceasefire- warranted a military response; and whether or not the dictator's regime was tenable in a post 9/11 world. For political reasons, the Bush administration chose to give Congress a vote in the matter (which again, was already decided in 1991, and for which Clinton sought no Congressional approval) and a majority of Democrats and Republicans chose to escalate the enforcement of the terms of the ceasefire, most importantly weapons inspections. 138 of our allies agreed that it was important. Saddam Hussein opted for war. Was the nation-building part of the deal? I would argue it wasn't, and shouldn't be part and parcel of military action. All of that being said- and all of it being water under the bridge, and Barrack Hussein Obama having already broken a promise to end the war in Iraq on "day one" of his presidency- it's simply nowhere near the level of partisan trickery, shenanigans, and outright lying and deceit that foisted the ObamaCare trainwreck on every single American.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 7, 2013 19:38:18 GMT -5
You can't compare stopping the war on terror to changing a law. apples and Oranges.
|
|