I think you're missing my point.

The article I linked to said Hitler was bad, but at least he meant well, unlike that evil Bush.

I was being mocking, parodying leftist idiocy that will mitigate -- at least, by comparison -- the most dishonorable acts if we can pretend that they were done with noble intent.

Did Hitler mean well?

They meant well, though, right? No matter what bad they do, they meant well, and that makes up for it. You know, like Hitler.

Right. But the point is that they now say it was an oversight, even though the architect said it was intentional, and for a specific and well-defined purpose.

So we know the language of the text is clear: it's for state exchanges. Their argument became, "well that wasn't intentional; if it were, that would be contrary to the purpose of the ACA." We know however, based on this quote and other similar ones, that it was intentional, and perfectly in line with the purpose of the ACA.

Gruber said in another comment in 2012 that the reason why you can't get subsidies for the federal exchange is so that states will be encouraged to make their own exchange.

Only someone who doesn't understand language would assert that I am not a source. Everyone who uses language is a source of meaning of that language. That's how our language actually works.

We both know you're lying, because I quoted other sources agreeing with me, and you pretend I didn't, just like you pretend I didn't reference Madison in regards to "democracy."

Actually, in fact, I did. I was very explicit. You just don't understand language, so you missed it. But because I am so generous, here it is again: common usage. That determines the meaning of all words. We can be prescriptive in a given context -- for example, "organic" has a specific legal definition when applied to food for sale -- but generally, we simply have to go with how words are commonly used. We use dictionaries to discover common usage if we don't know it, but not to prescribe it.

Not by anyone who understands language or dictionaries, no, it's not. Even Wikipedia says you are full of shit: "Large 20th-century dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and Webster's Third are descriptive, and attempt to describe the actual use of words. Most dictionaries of English now apply the descriptive method to a word's definition ... the meanings of words in English are primarily determined by usage."

You're a liar, of course: I referenced a very important person in the history of the word: James Madison himself. And it's not an "alternative," it's the original meaning. The original use of the word "democracy" was in reference to Athens, where all citizens collectively made all legislative decisions. You're just being completely idiotic, as usual.

I presumed you were capable of taking your URL and replacing "democracy" with "socialism". My bad.

You're a liar. I simply use dictionaries properly, and criticize their improper usage. Using a dictionary to settle a discussion about the proper meaning of a word is obviously stupid, if you understand that dictionaries are descriptive, and therefore prone to error. Even without understanding how dictionaries work, the fact that we have many English dictionaries with sometimes conflicting definitions should clue you in to the fact that you can't use one dictionary to settle the discussion.

Once again, you do not know how dictionaries work: they do not prescribe definitions, telling us what words must mean; they merely describe how words are commonly used. Dictionary authors are reporters, not dictators. And if we identify common usage that is not captured by the dictionary definition, that is proof that the dictionary is wrong or incomplete. Further, if we can identify common usage, we literally have no need for a dictionary at that point, because it would at best be redundant, and at worst mislead the less-educated among us who have been tricked into thinking that dictionaries are authoritative.

And too bad you didn't look at that same dictionary for "socialism," because under that entry, you see definitions that well-describe the Soviet and Chinese regimes of the 20th century that you say are not socialist. So by your own logic, you proved yourself wrong.

Do you ever tire of being a tool?

False. In fact, "democracy" means people making decisions collectively. As Publius wrote in Federalist 10, it's a society of people assembling and administering the government in person. For example, in Massachusetts, the residents, at a town meeting can pass any rules they wish for the town (subject to state and federal law, etc.). That's, arguably, actual democracy. But voting for your leaders is not. We call it "representative democracy," to highlight the fact that we're collectively voting for people to make decisions for us, but that's not a "type" of democracy, it's actually a different thing. We have small pieces of democracy -- town meetings, voter initiatives, and so on -- but not much of it.

You can make an argument for their being different degrees of democracy, but there are plenty of democracies in this world including the country you currently live in (unless you finally moved away from the USA).

Only in the exact same sense that there are different degrees of socialism, and there are plenty of socialist regimes in this world.

It only seems that way to morons like you. Really.

Literally no one agrees with you on this, no matter their opinions of my beliefs. I don't even believe you believe this. I can tell you're trying to hurt my ego, but you'll have as much luck doing so by attacking my intelligence and knowledge as you would for calling me short or hairless.

Translation: "crap, you caught me in a lie again, so I'll just lie some more and pretend that I wrote it and you just ignored/missed it."

Of course, this is the same idiot who lied about Democracy being responsible for more deaths than Socialism, even though the essentially socialist regimes Soviets and Chinese in the 20th century killed many times more than all democracies put together. Right, right, they aren't True Socialists. Well, there's never been a True Democracy either -- thankfully -- so it's a dishonest claim no matter how you slice it.

Not that we're surprised.

Remember that PCI-DSS is a fairly new standard. A quick search got me a VISA document that listed january 1, 2008 as the date for phasing out old payment systems that didn't manage card numbers securely.

The plain text credit card number was apparently used in a transaction from 2005. Still a bad idea to use a plain text card number. But ompanies doing stupid stuff like that.is kind of the reason why PCI-DSS became mandatory in the first place.

The very core of free market theory is consensual trade. Without mutual consent you can't have a free market. And that is why the low end labor market is in no way a free market. The worker is not consenting to work, he is figuratively forced at gunpoint.

So the only negative impact the minimum wage has on the free market is imaginary as there wasn't a free market to begin with. Well, unless you had some kind of basic income to remove the figurative gun from the picture.

Anyone calling the current economy a free market is spouting bullshit. The core of free market theory is consent between seller (employee) and consumer (employer). But you can't have proper consent when the seller is under duress.

Unions are kind of a solution, but that is essentially fighting duress with duress which is a negative cold war strategy. Not what I would call a free market.

The better solution in my opinion is an unconditional basic income, that directly tries to solve the problem of sellers being under duress to begin with. All without having the government doing any extra regulations of the market. In fact, with a proper basic income you can even remove regulations such as the minimum wage.

How about a $10 month unlimited Audiobook service?