I'm completely shocked that when given additional opportunity, you still won't back up your claims.

The bizarre thing is that you're accusing me of "singling out one particular issue based purely on the person implementing it," when you have literally no example of me ever doing that, ever, least of all in this discussion, where if anything I was taking Gruber's side.

Not in any way, no, I did not.

You're a liar.

I agree. I am nearly completely transparent and obvious and clear. I lack pretense or disguise.

No. It's true that the framers and most people who understand politics want the people to be ignorant about most issues in government, because otherwise, the people would be spending too much time watching government and not enough time enjoying life and being productive. Everyone should want to be ignorant about most things, especially most things government does. Otherwise you'll be miserable.

But it's not true that they want people to be ignorant, but with a delusion of lack of ignorance. You're just making things up.

There's no objective reason why it's a bad thing.

I'm a dope because you ... agreed with me? You think that little of yourself?

You're a liar.

Well, yes, people who believe what they are told -- and then profess to know those things -- without investigating it, are stupid.

Gruber was mostly right, although the word "stupid" is probably not what he meant. But the fact is that whoever believed it wasn't a tax, it wouldn't raise rates, it wouldn't force you to change plans and possibly doctors, etc., was ignorant. Not stupid, necessarily, but ignorant. That said, someone who is ignorant and thinks that he actually knows these things is kinda stupid. So all the news folks, for example, who said that what Republicans said about the ACA were lies ... they were stupid.

The fact is that almost everything the GOP said about the ACA was true. Federal funding of abortions, subsidies for illegals, massive government control defined at a later date by an administrator and not Congress, death panels, increased taxes and premiums, decreased choice ... all of it was and is true.

I'd expect an article talking about criminally prosecuting Gruber would at least make reference to some violation of the criminal code. I see no crime. Neither the author nor his interviewee mention any crime. He makes vague references to "Deceit. Fraud. Premeditated felonious theft.," but he simply gave his opinions; he didn't implement anything. The theft was by the government, not him. The fraud was perhaps aided by him, but no court has ever found that government fraud of this type is prosecutable, so prosecuting a private citizen for aiding the government in something that can't be prosecuted makes no sense.

Yawn.

No, that is an anarchist society: no cops, no courts, no laws. If you have any of those, you have government employees. If you don't have government employees, you have none of those. Capitalism does not imply anarchy.

I won't even read the rest of your comment; an anonymous coward getting this fundamentally obvious thing so clearly wrong doesn't deserve more of a response.

Yes, my view of things is that we should rely on reason and evidence. Yours is that we should rely on fallacies and innuendo.

I see. You think the number of prosecutions of the executive branch, BY the executive branch, is a reasonable measurement between administrations of which is more corrupt.

That's so cute. And it's so stupid that it physically hurts.

The rest of your comment was nothing more than lies and ad hominems. Literally, there was nothing else in that comment that didn't fall into that category. Especially your claim that speaking to my assumed "culture, ancestry, location of birth" in your argument is not an ad hominem. That's fucking textbook ad hominem.

Since you didn't say how the examples "suck," the examples therefore still stand, and therefore your assertion that they are "just like the rest" -- which ignores the examples of how they are not -- is baseless, and ignored.

Much moreso than Republicans, as the examples -- which remain undisputed -- demonstrate.

Ad hominem.

Non sequitur.

What's that got to do with whether "people who 'donate' to political campaigns ... expect a return on their investments?"

And you did tell me that I am "full of shit" ... but you've not backed it up. Still waiting.

a. He is not my idol
b. You're lying that Regan's is "[o]n official record as the most corrupt administration ever"

Didn't you used to better at this? Maybe I am misremembering.

I didn't mention donating to campaigns, unless you're referring to collective bargaining leading to politicians giving handouts to employees in exchange for donations and votes ... which is obviously true, which is one of many reasons I say Democrats are more anti-capitalist.

But I don't think you're talking about that, so I don't have any idea what you think I said here, but it seems to me that I didn't say it.

Yes, he accepts donations, like all politicians do.

What's wrong with that? This isn't an argument, it's just an attempt to imply something negative, without actually saying anything that is actually negative.

I gave specific examples. Do you have any counterexamples? If not, then you're not actually making an argument here, either.

False.

You're correct on the first point, and incorrect on the second point. There would be far fewer government employees, but no, they would still exist.

But I didn't say these are the correct capitalist positions. I said they are "much more pro-capitalist" than the Democrats. Clearly, if there should be no minimum wage under capitalism -- which I agree is clearly true -- then being against its increase is more pro-capitalist than being in favor of its increase. Further, the one person I mentioned -- Scott Walker -- said just recently that he thinks the minimum wage serves no purpose.