Obviously, it had VERY little Republican backing then. Tell me, why then did the Democrats oppose it then but not now? :sssh:

 

Good question and obviously the flip side of the coin. Not sure why the need for the :sssh:, I'm not defending anything. :lol:

Good question and obviously the flip side of the coin. Not sure why the need for the :sssh:, I'm not defending anything. :lol:

The :sssh: wasn't really meant for you, it was meant for 2 Humped Camel. Sorry about that.

Both of you are avoiding answering and for good reason, it's hard to use the H word. It wasn't passed because a much more aggressive "Universal" plan was on the table by democrats. Now how can a bill signed into law by one Republican presidential candiate as state law and a proposed bill written by and co-sponsored by 19 more Republicans in 1993 that was for all intensive purposes the same bill now be universally opposed by Republicans? Not only opposed but stoking fears of losing freedoms, socialist take overs, baby killer, etc.

I'm not looking for the it's a bad bill then and now....Either something has changed in party principals, values, or they are being big H words for political gain.

 

Haven't seen you answer RTS but nice try. What's different on the Dem side? It was their way or no way? Possibly the Big H applies everywhere?

I think the camel asked first.

But 2 Humped Camel's question to me appears to be more of "Why did the bill have Republican backing then?" rather than "Why wasn't it passed then but was passed now?"

 

:thumb: I also answered and gave my opinion on why it wasn't passed then, but my question keeps getting answered with questions.

In 93' I was 15....

 

 

It is hypocritical.

 

How many of those who sponsored this bill are still in office?

 

6 by my count although one has switched his party affiliation.

I think the camel asked first.

He got an answer.

:thumb: I also answered and gave my opinion on why it wasn't passed then, but my question keeps getting answered with questions.

Your question was answered, you choose to ignore it. That's on you.

Your question was answered, you choose to ignore it. That's on you.

 

His question was not really answered. He was asking why the republicans shifted their support. That was never answered.

His question was not really answered. He was asking why the republicans shifted their support. That was never answered.

I sure did.

 

:lol: I don't know what you want from me, I already said it failed as this one should have. Let me spell it out for you, I think that bill is every bit as bad as the one Obama singed. Problem is, this one did get signed, didn't it. So, to answer your question, the House, Congress and President was much smarter than what we have now, and much more American.

 

See, his post was about a few Republicans, not all Republicans. Not all Republicans voted for it back them, unlike the Democrats of today.

I sure did.

 

 

 

See, his post was about a few Republicans, not all Republicans. Not all Republicans voted for it back them, unlike the Democrats of today.

 

His question was why those 6 who are still in office and were sponsors of the bill then chose not to vote for it now.

His question was why those 6 who are still in office and were sponsors of the bill then chose not to vote for it now.

6 people? Who cares? It's 6 people! I'm more concerned with why those that were against it THIS TIME changed their vote after secret meetings. I ask you, which is more concerning?

6 people? Who cares? It's 6 people! I'm more concerned with why those that were against it THIS TIME changed their vote after secret meetings. I ask you, which is more concerning?

 

Ahh, but it still avoids the whole point of the thread.

 

It was good for these guys when proposed by Rep. but bad when proposed by democrats.

 

I am going to guess that your answer is that they are just much wiser now. That all of the non-votes from the Rep. this time had nothing to do with being obstructionist and towing the party line.

 

gotcha.

Ahh, but it still avoids the whole point of the thread.

 

It was good for these guys when proposed by Rep. but bad when proposed by democrats.

 

I am going to guess that your answer is that they are just much wiser now. That all of the non-votes from the Rep. this time had nothing to do with being obstructionist and towing the party line.

 

gotcha.

:lol: It was '93! Are you telling me you think the same way about everything since '93? His question is really pointless. 17 years can change your views, no? Instead, of course it has to do with being obstructionist and towing the party line. Gotcha.

:lol: It was '93! Are you telling me you think the same way about everything since '93? His question is really pointless. 17 years can change your views, no? Instead, of course it has to do with being obstructionist and towing the party line. Gotcha.

 

How would these Republicans have voted if George W. Bush had proposed the exact same plan in 2006? Just curious.