Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Does Being Honest About A River Of Lies Count As Integrity? 33
In a recently uncovered video taken at an event in October 2013, Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber says that lack of transparency was a key advantage in helping get the law passed.
"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes," Gruber stated. "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage," he explained adding, "Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass." Given a choice between honestly informing the public and passing the bill, Gruber says he'd rather have the bill.
Would that I'd confidence the Republican's didn't secretly agree.
Anybody who thinks good can come from this river of lies is an utter fool.
It would indeed count (Score:1)
But only when you tell the whole truth, not just what pjmedia says. It also only counts when you finally recognize the footsteps the president is following. When you treat the people that lied us into war and the ones who smuggle weapons and drugs with total deference, idolatry even(! don't bother denying it), while blabbering on about another that does the exact same thing only because you don't approve of the people doing it, the integrity simply becomes irrelevant. Now it's just a circus show. No integri
Re: (Score:1)
You're turning into damn_registrars, and it's a shame. I mean, when you're going to falsely accuse, go for it big time! Why not accuse me of being a Khmer Rouge Sympathizer, and having liquidated thousands of Cambodians with my bare hands? Don't let any of the associated factual impossibilities dissuade you: if you're going to make it up, let's have Full Tilt Boogie, please.
Re: (Score:1)
Why not accuse me of being a Khmer Rouge Sympathizer, and having liquidated thousands of Cambodians with my bare hands?
I leave the absurdities up to you. I know your ploy there. Instead of getting all defensive, try a little introspection. It does a world of good.
Re: (Score:1)
I leave the absurdities up to you.
You were not absurd when exactly? You and damn_registrars are both variations of the them of hooey.
Re: (Score:1)
I guess that would make us Siamese triplets then, because you two are definitely joined at the hips. You're in a three legged race trying to run in opposite directions... A pair of chimps fighting over a fruit fly. One likes the legs, the other prefers the breast meat.
I only observe your natural habits. If that appears absurd to you, it's because you're looking in the mirror, and denying the reflection is yours. I guess my absurd part is that I am 'arguing' with a lab specimen. That is a bit crazy, isn't it
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Nah, you two go ahead, three's a crowd.
What's the big deal? (Score:1)
This is simply a core, fundamental belief in modern American Leftism. They'd moved on from trying to convince the working classes to join them in overthrowing the system, to being convinced (and this part they're right about) that people are too stupid to make the right decisions for themselves and therefore they need to fool them into letting them gradually, fundamentally transform the system. Communism has simply adapted and evolved, to what works and what doesn't. (Because what works is the *only* thi
Re: (Score:1)
Enter the walking echo chamber, filling the room with eternal light... So... avant-gard.. So hip!
I always appreciate a good spectacle.
What does the voter have to do with this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The voters never had a say in this matter, nor would they ever have had one.
Not even at the ballot box, then? Are you saying that elections don't have consequences?
The bill never had to keep the voters in mind and would have become law in this form at some point regardless of which suits were in charge in the house, the senate, or at 1600 Pennsylvania.
That's your counterfactual, and you can stroke it at any frequency you want.
Re: (Score:2)
The voters never had a say in this matter, nor would they ever have had one.
Not even at the ballot box, then?
There are some bills and acts of government that go one way or another depending on who is in charge. This was absolutely not one of those. There are more politicians on the insurance industry payroll than there are who are not, and they are of both party affiliations.
Take a look at your conservative heroes who want to repeal this lousy bill. What do they want to replace it with? They want to replace it with the same damned thing. All the politicians are serving the same masters here, and the mast
Re: (Score:1)
There is nothing counterfactual about it.
No, really: "would have become law in this form at some point regardless of which suits were in charge in the house" is you waving a hand at the problem. It's a counterfactual [google.com]. As you're really only a crappy prophet, one should fall short of calling you a liar in this case. One is better advised to wait for such an event, rather that look a fool for trying to pass a hypothetical as a certainty.
Re: (Score:2)
This bill was a guarantee. It was only a matter of whose name would be associated with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If you think my claim isn't accurate, then show me how many of your conservative congresspeople are not taking money from the insurance industry.
(a) How would you disprove a negative?
(b) What would 'accuracy' mean, were (a) possible?
(c) Related: for a purported 'intellectual superior', you sure offer some crappy thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think my claim isn't accurate, then show me how many of your conservative congresspeople are not taking money from the insurance industry.
(a) How would you disprove a negative?
The data is public. You can look up who is getting contributions from which lobbies. The simple fact is that the insurance industry is paying off the overwhelming majority of all congresspeople from all parties. You can't beat them, no matter what you do. It just so happens that the insurance industry came to collect on their investment when your guys weren't in the majority; the result would have been the same had they come when they were.
In other words I'm not asking you to disprove a negative.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if the question is so trivially answered, why're you attempting to task me?
My goal remains the same. I want you to actually learn. You have taken a decidedly anti-learning stance in recent years. It is not entirely clear why you have such disdain for acquiring actual knowledge. Regardless, I will continue to try to lead you to actual information in spite of your contempt towards it.
Aside: are you admitting defeat in the Communist Manifesto reading group?
I am not familiar with this strange concept of defeat you are attempting to apply here. Defeat to what or whom?
Re: (Score:1)
My goal remains the same. I want you to actually learn.
Oh, believe me: you've done a heck of a job, Gruber.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actions are so much louder than words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The voters never had a say in this matter, nor would they ever have had one.
You're so full of it. Who do think elected and reelected congress that passed the law? It was people like you! In fact there you are pimping the democrats still (apparently for the government handout your employer pays you, so it's only natural), in your time-share salesman fashion. You have your voice, and you approved of the bill. To deny it would be a lie, and only confirm that you and Smith are mirror images, both trying to deny
Re: (Score:2)
The voters never had a say in this matter, nor would they ever have had one.
You're so full of it. Who do think elected and reelected congress that passed the law?
It doesn't make a bit of difference. The insurance industry has too powerful of a lobby. If not a single incumbent had been reelected this year, by March the insurance industry would still have 80% of the new guys on payroll. There's no way to beat this. Congress is no longer for sale, as it is already owned.
apparently for the government handout your employer pays you
A completely natural thing for someone to say when they don't know shit about what I do.
You have your voice, and you approved of the bill.
There was no vote option to not approve of this bill. I voted for people who said they were going to deliv
Re: (Score:1)
You are one of the biggest whiners around here. You are why we have the system we have. Yes, you! We have Obamacare because of you. We have NSA, DEA, IRS, the wars, etc, specifically because of you. You voted for it twice. To deny it is a lie! This government represents you and Smith to the tee. It is an exact reflection. It is working perfectly, and we have you to thank for all of its great "accomplishments". You are the very root of the problem. You are a puppet on a string. You are utterly, completely ho
Re: (Score:1)
You are why we have the system we have. Yes, you! We have Obamacare because of you.
Shirly you should afford yourself some credit, say, half, based upon your penchant for trolling anyone attempting to go after the systemic drivers for the corruption in our system that has been amplified by the Progressives.
Re: (Score:1)
I do not vote for republicans/democrats. My only consent comes from the act of voting. I have to consent to the results if I partake. That is also one of the things that make not voting a perfectly valid reason not to vote at all. If do not consent, you shouldn't vote.
Re: (Score:1)
My only consent comes from the act of voting. I have to consent to the results if I partake. That is also one of the things that make not voting a perfectly valid reason not to vote at all. If do not consent, you shouldn't vote.
This is a head-'sploding concept. I mean, whoever owns the scope/definition of "consent" in this formulation is some kind of demi-God.
As usual, I think you're daft, but I'll need to ponder the fullness of your daftness for a while before offering a fully-worked response.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't bother, you already decided against the facts. Nothing what I say fits into your ideology. I fully expect out of hand dismissal. Regardless, they stand tall despite all that.
Re: (Score:1)