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 as arrogant as you would claim themselves as a source.
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 wrong
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."
Without a common source on the meaning of words, how do words have meanings at all? You can argue for a different source - and I have noticed that you have not yet done so
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.
the dictionary is a generally agreed-upon source for the meanings of words
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
You have not yet however demonstrated your interesting alternate use of the word "democracy" to be used by anyone other than yourself
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 see that you didn't bother to present that definition.
I presumed you were capable of taking your URL and replacing "democracy" with "socialism". My bad.
you openly despise the dictionary
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.
It appears to be - again - you versus the dictionary.
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?
Democracy is people voting for their leaders.
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.
In other words your attempt to make an argument on "True Socialism" : "True Democracy" is completely without merit
It only seems that way to morons like you. Really.
For someone who likes to bitch incessantly about politics, your knowledge is sorely lacking.
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.
Every week you give another example of where you ignore some of His' teachings in favor of others.
As someone who takes the Gospel more seriously than pretty much anything else, I have to ask for specifics on where you think I'm off course.
Just as I cannot force you to read what I write, I cannot force you to read what you write, either.
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.
Not my "meme." I rarely, if ever, refer to it.
But, it's true. Capitalism relies on private control and a free, competitive market. Crony capitalism is government control and a resulting non-free market by explicitly decreasing competition.
I mean, sure, you can call it whatever you want to, but when I say "capitalism works" and someone says "crony capitalism is proof it doesn't," that's just stupid, because crony capitalism flatly violates some of the primary tenets of capitalism.
It was a different fork of this thread.
So you admit you lied.
False, but telling that you think such a stupid thing. To you, there's no difference between freedom, and not-freedom. It's just two different options, neither better than the other.
It is also noted that you have still failed to produce an example of a federal regulation that actually impedes profitability of health insurance companies.
a. I never saw you ask that. It might've been in the comment I replied to, and I didn't see it, because after your massive whopper about what you want people to think crony capitalism is, I stopped reading.
b. Why would I produce an example of something I never asserted? Once again: holy shit, you're retarded.
For example, does state law say you cannot participate in GOP runoff if you participated in Dem primary?
I think that's the case McDaniel is making, and I haven't heard it refuted.
I haven't seen the case strongly made. If you have a link, I'd be obliged. Stories I saw all handwaved at it.
You don't seem to understand that in modern America, "having rules and enforcing them" == "voter suppression".
But they are Republicans. Voter suppression is expected. It's OK.
Check the mirror and see if you don't notice a big ol' raaaaacist in there, or something.
Only because I see YOU STANDING BEHIND ME. What the fuck, man?!?
Sorry, no. I have these things called pride and integrity.
You fucking asshole.
Nice, except you said "altruism," which is an illusion. True, Cochran is not altruistic, but no one ever is.
This is the first I've heard of this. I want to know specifics. For example, does state law say you cannot participate in GOP runoff if you participated in Dem primary? And is that what happened? If so, then yes, Cochran should lose, but really, MS screwed up, because they should have disallowed those Dem primary voters from participating.