New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why did Pugs oppose Obamacare in the first place?

Bugsy McGurk

Bugsy McGurk

President
Pugs now contend that they thought that insurance plans would stay the same under Obamacare. Obama told them so! He said people could just keep their old insurance plans! Forever!

But if Pugs REALLY thought that Obamacare would not result in a change in insurance, why would they have bitterly opposed it for the last 3 years?

Answer: Pugs never really thought that. They knew that Obama's statements about keeping the insurance you had related only to the old grandfathered policies that some insurers ultimately decided to renew, not to new policies. New policies would, under Obamacare, have to include all kinds of things - the very things Pugs bitched about for the last 3 years.

Pugs knew that then, and they know that now. It's absurdly illogical to claim that Obama lied in the past - Pugs knew exactly what he said, and meant. That's why they opposed Obamacare in the first place.
 
Bugsy McGurk said:
Pugs now contend that they thought that insurance plans would stay the same under Obamacare. Obama told them so! He said people could just keep their old insurance plans! Forever!

But if Pugs REALLY thought that Obamacare would not result in a change in insurance, why would they have bitterly opposed it for the last 3 years?

Answer: Pugs never really thought that. They knew that Obama's statements about keeping the insurance you had related only to the old grandfathered policies that some insurers ultimately decided to renew, not to new policies. New policies would, under Obamacare, have to include all kinds of things - the very things Pugs bitched about for the last 3 years.

Pugs knew that then, and they know that now. It's absurdly illogical to claim that Obama lied in the past - Pugs knew exactly what he said, and meant. That's why they opposed Obamacare in the first place.
Click to expand...

Mr. Bugs,

Unlike liberals, Conservatives are not distracted by shiny objects, and we knew everything that Obama said about the ACA was a lie.
 
The pugs swore to make Obama fail. They are still trying so despite their best efforts Obama is making progress on bringing America back.
 
Funny OPne day its ACA then its the democratic using racist language...so what happened ...now you go with racist language to cover up Obama lies about Obamcare...he said 37 times I could keep my plan...but could I really? NO...

So post any point in those 37 times Obama said that you could keep your plan...that he referenced "Grandfathering"...or shut up!

And to the point that Republicans knew about the grandfathering...More so the question would be did the Democrats know?

Answer NO...they would have had to read the bill to know...and did they?...of course not ask Pelosi and Schumer.

So Yes Republicans would have read the bill ...thus they would know that there was a grandfathering clause...thus when Obama lied...he got caught...sucks to be you!
 
ya-ta-hey said:
Mr. Bugs,

Unlike liberals, Conservatives are not distracted by shiny objects, and we knew everything that Obama said about the ACA was a lie.
Click to expand...

I think that's a lie.

Because you Pugs were not squawking that Obama lied about "Keeping your insurance if you want to" way back then. You now claim you thought he was saying that insurance would not change. But that's obviously a lie too, because why would Pugs bitterly oppose a law that would not change insurance?

As you see, Pugs' lies about this collide with each other.

The Politifact Lie of the Year SHOULD have gone to Pugs now claiming that Obama lied 3 years ago. And Politifact should have given one of those awards to itself too.

;-)
 
Bugsy McGurk said:
I think that's a lie.

Because you Pugs were not squawking that Obama lied about "Keeping your insurance if you want to" way back then. You now claim you thought he was saying that insurance would not change. But that's obviously a lie too, because why would Pugs bitterly oppose a law that would not change insurance?

As you see, Pugs lies about this collide with each other.

The Politifact Lie of the Year SHOULD have gone to Pugs now claiming that Obama lied 3 years ago. And Politifact should have given one of those awards to itself too.

;-)
Click to expand...

If any isnt bent over in front of your President sucking...you think iots a lie...your President got caught in the "Lie of the Year"...and that will be his legacy
 
Bugsy McGurk said:
Pugs now contend that they thought that insurance plans would stay the same under Obamacare. Obama told them so! He said people could just keep their old insurance plans! Forever!

But if Pugs REALLY thought that Obamacare would not result in a change in insurance, why would they have bitterly opposed it for the last 3 years?

Answer: Pugs never really thought that. They knew that Obama's statements about keeping the insurance you had related only to the old grandfathered policies that some insurers ultimately decided to renew, not to new policies. New policies would, under Obamacare, have to include all kinds of things - the very things Pugs bitched about for the last 3 years.

Pugs knew that then, and they know that now. It's absurdly illogical to claim that Obama lied in the past - Pugs knew exactly what he said, and meant. That's why they opposed Obamacare in the first place.
Click to expand...


"Why did Pugs oppose Obamacare in the first place?"

Because, UNLIKE all of you obaminite ass clowns, we have sense enough to just somehow magically know we need to oppose ANY bill that we are TOLD we need to pass in order to even see what is IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Bugsy McGurk said:
I think that's a lie.

Because you Pugs were not squawking that Obama lied about "Keeping your insurance if you want to" way back then. You now claim you thought he was saying that insurance would not change. But that's obviously a lie too, because why would Pugs bitterly oppose a law that would not change insurance?

As you see, Pugs' lies about this collide with each other.

The Politifact Lie of the Year SHOULD have gone to Pugs now claiming that Obama lied 3 years ago. And Politifact should have given one of those awards to itself too.

;-)
Click to expand...

Mr. Bugs,

Exactly, we have always pointed out that Obama lied about everything. No inconsistancy there, except maybe, in you trying to twist the facts to protect your messiah.
 
UPNYA2 said:
"Why did Pugs oppose Obamacare in the first place?"

Because, UNLIKE all of you obaminite ass clowns, we have sense enough to just somehow magically know we need to oppose ANY bill that we are TOLD we need to pass in order to even see what is IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

That's not why - no one knows what a law says until it is passed. Endlessly harping on Pelosi's statement about the obvious does not answer my question.

Let me know if you have any sensible response to it.
 
ya-ta-hey said:
Mr. Bugs,

Exactly, we have always pointed out that Obama lied about everything. No inconsistancy there, except maybe, in you trying to twist the facts to protect your messiah.
Click to expand...

Nope - you keep dodging the points.

The Pugs did NOT claim back then that Obama was lying about what the ACA said - Pugs knew, like anyone else who can read, that the ACA grandfathered then-existing policies. Pugs' yammering about "Obama lying" about what the ACA says is a recent yammer.

But IF Pugs did believe that Obama was saying that the ACA would not change insurance, there would have been no reason to bitterly oppose the ACA, which Pugs obviously did.

As always, Pugs' positions are incoherent.
 
Bugsy McGurk said:
Nope - you keep dodging the points.

The Pugs did NOT claim back then that Obama was lying about what the ACA said - Pugs knew, like anyone else who can read, that the ACA grandfathered then-existing policies. Pugs' yammering about "Obama lying" about what the ACA says is a recent yammer.

But IF Pugs did believe that Obama was saying that the ACA would not change insurance, there would have been no reason to bitterly oppose the ACA, which Pugs obviously did.

As always, Pugs' positions are incoherent.
Click to expand...

Mr. Bugs,

You can keep making things up, claiming they are facts. Unfortunately, you can't prove any of your contentions.

Oh, wait, I forgot who I was arguing with. You never have been able to prove any of your contentions. You drew me in again, you sly little dog.
 
Bugsy McGurk said:
That's not why - no one knows what a law says until it is passed. Endlessly harping on Pelosi's statement about the obvious does not answer my question.

Let me know if you have any sensible response to it.
Click to expand...


Well just dam, buggy.......

You call yourself "asking" why some of us did something and then when we respond with something other than what YOU "feel" is the reason you come back with, "That's not why."????????????

WTF, skippy?

If you are just going to make an assertation, do it, don't pretend to actually be "asking", that does nothing to in some way prove your assertation, in spite of what you believe.

And as for THIS desperate dumdy-fu-k, "swing-and-a-miss", ".. no one knows what a law says until it is passed", ............... just,.........DAM!

Why is it then we often see and hear of potential laws and bills being negotiated, altered, revised until they finally come up for a vote?

Why was THIS bill singled out by batwoman, why state that this bill, SPECIFICALLY, had to be passed to see what was in it?????
If in fact, as you claim, this is the same for ALL laws why is it the joker-faced pelosi was unaware of that, felt compelled to tell us it was necessary for THIS law as opposed to telling us it was not unusual, that we had no laws that we knew what was in them until after we passed them????


You really stepped in it this time, hoss. Best just let this one go and move on to your NEXT, "cons suck" rant.
 
ya-ta-hey said:
Mr. Bugs,

You can keep making things up, claiming they are facts. Unfortunately, you can't prove any of your contentions.

Oh, wait, I forgot who I was arguing with. You never have been able to prove any of your contentions. You drew me in again, you sly little dog.
Click to expand...

FYI, you did not disagree with any of my facts.

Your're just yammering. Please feel free to disagree with any facts, if you can.
 
UPNYA2 said:
Well just dam, buggy.......

You call yourself "asking" why some of us did something and then when we respond with something other than what YOU "feel" is the reason you come back with, "That's not why."????????????

WTF, skippy?

If you are just going to make an assertation, do it, don't pretend to actually be "asking", that does nothing to in some way prove your assertation, in spite of what you believe.

And as for THIS desperate dumdy-fu-k, "swing-and-a-miss", ".. no one knows what a law says until it is passed", ............... just,.........DAM!

Why is it then we often see and hear of potential laws and bills being negotiated, altered, revised until they finally come up for a vote?

Why was THIS bill singled out by batwoman, why state that this bill, SPECIFICALLY, had to be passed to see what was in it?????
If in fact, as you claim, this is the same for ALL laws why is it the joker-faced pelosi was unaware of that, felt compelled to tell us it was necessary for THIS law as opposed to telling us it was not unusual, that we had no laws that we knew what was in them until after we passed them????


You really stepped in it this time, hoss. Best just let this one go and move on to your NEXT, "cons suck" rant.
Click to expand...

Huh?

You really DO think we know what laws say BEFORE they get passed? I don't believe you really think that, but let me know if you are that insane, so I can stop picking on you.

And, by all means, if you can focus on the topic of the thread, and wish to answer the question I asked, please give it a go.
 
Bugsy McGurk said:
FYI, you did not disagree with any of my facts.

Your're just yammering. Please feel free to disagree with any facts, if you can.
Click to expand...

Mr. Bugs,

You did not present facts, but rather a red herring. A red herring, by definition, is a distortion of the facts.

To wit, you claim that Conservatives thought that insurance plans would stay the same under Obummercare, when in reality, Conservatives have been saying for four years now that is not possible.

The fact that Conservatives are pointing out that Obummer has been lying for three years does not change that.

Sorry to ruin your premise.

By the by,

Last word! Gotcha.
 
ya-ta-hey said:
Mr. Bugs,

You did not present facts, but rather a red herring. A red herring, by definition, is a distortion of the facts.

To wit, you claim that Conservatives thought that insurance plans would stay the same under Obummercare, when in reality, Conservatives have been saying for four years now that is not possible.

The fact that Conservatives are pointing out that Obummer has been lying for three years does not change that.

Sorry to ruin your premise.

By the by,

Last word! Gotcha.
Click to expand...

Again, you can pretend that Pugs have been saying for years that Obama lied about the ACA grandfathering provision, but it's just not so.

The very essence of the Pugs' recent "Obama lied" jihad is that Obama lied to and misled the Pugs and everybody else, leading them to conclude that insurance plans would not change due to the ACA, when recent insurer actions have revealed that the ACA will cause the plans to change. But if Pugs really DID believe that that is what Obama was saying, why would they have bitterly opposed the ACA?

Answer: The Pugs' claims of "Obama lying" are illogical. Pugs knew Obama was not saying that the ACA would result in all plans remaining the same. Pugs knew that - we all knew that. That's why they opposed the ACA in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top