Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal: Admiring the Administration's efforts to play drums and guitar simultaneously 3

Journal by smitty_one_each

. . ."Getting the Facts Straight on Health Care Reform," was written by Gruber for The New England Journal of Medicine in December 2009.
Breitbart has since learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) used this same article to defend itself in the case filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the lawsuit, the Commonwealth argued that Congress has exceeded its Article 1 powers in enacting Obamacare. Page six of HHSâ(TM)s October 4, 2010, Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment states:

The "guaranteed issue" and "community rating" reforms are regulations of insurance policies placed into Interstate commerce, and those reforms depend directly on the minimum coverage provision to work. See, e,g., Jonathan Gruber, Getting the Facts Straight on Health Care Reform, 361 NEW ENGL.J. OF MED. 2497, 2498 (2009).

HHSâ(TM)s use of the Gruber article raises a key question: Why would the Obama administration and Obamacare supporters claim that the presidentâ(TM)s health care law contained a "typo" stating only state exchanges are eligible for subsidies if the Obama administration itself used an article by Obamacare architect Gruber stating the exact opposite?

My question is: Given the thorough, systemic, nonstop falsehood involved in all stages of ObamaCare, from wee intellectual tumor through full bureaucratic metastasis, how does anyone expect any good to come of this? How does it begin to be possible to trust these clowns to do anything whatsoever, including delivering any aspect of health care? When they are done, and give it all a "My bad", and then peddle their real goal, Single Payer, by what miracle shall they have become trustworthy?

Republicans

Journal: When it doubt, try for the Jedi Mind-Trick, right? 9

Journal by damn_registrars
not that it will work, but the new GOP party mantra is to pretend that nobody from their camp was calling for impeachment. Even more so, try desperately to convince people that this who impeachment bit was cooked up by ... wait for it ...

The Obama administration themselves!

That's right! If the GOP lies about it enough they will eventually wear out the thinking public and get them to believe that Obama (perhaps in cooperation with the high reptoids from the illuminati) actually cooked this whole thing up just to ...

just to ...

just to ...

just ...

Well, shit the GOP forgot to write that part. Take your pick, they have no shortage of conspiracy theories that the like to keep pumping into the media. Clearly this somehow advances his agenda of giving pentillions of dollars worth of socialized medicine, education, ponies, communist mantras, and rent-controlled mansions to illegal immigrants by way of ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, and trade unions. Or something.
User Journal

Journal: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party 31

Journal by smitty_one_each

The arguments by which the Obama administration is countering lawsuits that seek to limit Obamacare subsidies to participants in "exchanges" established by states--a limit that is specified in the Obamacare law itself--have raised the outcome's stakes. Administration officials argue that the plain, unmistakable, uncontested language of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is less important than what they want the law to mean, and that hewing to its words would deprive millions of people of the subsidies that the administration had granted them regardless of those words. Therefore the courts should enforce what the administration wants rather than what the law says.
The Democratic Party, the bulk of its appointees in the judiciary, and the mainstream media echo these arguments.
America has moved away from the rule of law in recent decades, as more and more of the decisions by which we must live are made by administrative agencies in consultation with their favorite constituencies and judges rather than by the people's elected representatives. More and more, statutes passed by Congress are lengthy grants of power to administrative agencies, the content of which is determined by complex interactions between bureaucrats, special interests, and judges aligned with either. Hence House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's famous statement--that the ACA's meaning would be determined only after its passage--was true of it and most other modern legislation as well. This is the rule of men, not of law.

Obama is arguably more audacious about it, but look at the TSA.
Sarah Palin is arguing for impeachment, though that's really all about making damn_registrars foam at the mouth and driving subscriptions. We can impeach our way through the whole federal government, but if we are discussing systemic changes, then we're pissing in the wind, say I.

It's funny.  Laugh.

Journal: Gettin' Maverick-y on ya! 8

Journal by damn_registrars
I heard about the launch of The Sarah Palin Channel online today. Apparently for just under $10 / month she'll tell you regularly how Obama is colluding with the "lamestream media" to ruin our country.

I cautiously looked at the page. For me the main attraction was that I read they had a "countdown clock" on it counting down the days left in the Lawnchair Administration. I thought this might have meant that someone finally showed her a calendar and broke the news to her that impeachment is really no longer on the table as it is not realistically capable of ending the current administration before it reaches it's natural end in 2017.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, though, the maverick is trying to have it both ways. Yes, there is a clock (which I'll point out has the headline word "days" in it and then proceeds to give you days, hours, minutes, and seconds), but there is also plenty of stuff calling for impeachment. And if impeachment were to end with removal of the POTUS, then the clock as it is currently set up would not make sense.

But then again, most of what is on there doesn't make sense either.
User Journal

Journal: Just how much lying is acceptable in support of "Higher Truth"? 49

Journal by smitty_one_each

On Thursday, footage surfaced of Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist and chief architect of Obamacare, discussing the issue at the heart of the latest ACA court cases: whether subsidies are only available for state-run insurance exchanges or can also be paid as part of a federal exchange.
During a January 2012 lecture Gruber said, "I think what's important to remember politically about this, is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits."
Gruber spoke with Jonathan Cohn, a senior editor at The New Republic, about the video on Friday and said the remarks were a "mistake" made while "speaking off-the-cuff."

Since ObamaCare is just a river of lies anyway, this sort of blatant falsehood must be deemed entirely in character.
Just don't forget to salivate when these deceivers are done with the whole ObamaCare falsehood and offer to "fix" the whole situation with Single Prayer.
No matter the magnitude and frequency of the falsehoods spewing from these liars, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Because "it's the right thing to do". Also, you've been stupid enough to vote them power thus far, America: why change now?

User Journal

Journal: Practical socialism 29

Journal by smitty_one_each

So, past all of the theorizing, what ends up happening in pretty much any political system you can name is that power gets concentrated, corrupts leaders, and ruin follows.
The act of trying to separate the theory of a system from the ensuing existential wreckage is among the more amusing acts one can watch other human beings undertake. No Christian wants to admit that Adolf himself made Christian utterances, for a bit of auto-Godwinism.
Thus when evaluating the goodness of a system of thought, I submit that not only should the abstract ideas be considered, but also the historical results of the ideas, and the subjective effects.
For my observation, Socialism offers some emotionally pleasing notions, but, like every single bureaucratic solution I've ever seen, winds up loving the problems it purports to "solve", and leads to stagnation.
Restated: you'll always have a statistical distribution of income. What matters not is that there are rich and poor (that's inevitable), but that there is a current flowing inside the distribution, so that people can reap as much/little as their genius and effort supports.
The big fib of Socialism is that, with just a few more pages of legislation, we can make that current flow "fairly".
Socialism, for some, seems a substitute for a proper faith in something that will endure beyond the final heartbeat.

Republicans

Journal: You Want Impeachment? Knock Yourselves Out 6

Journal by damn_registrars
These two numbers show why impeachment talk is trouble for the GOP

What I find most interesting about the impeachment coverage, though is that nobody is bringing up the biggest thing that makes impeachment a total losing proposition for the GOP:

They can't remove Obama before his term is up

Even if they started the impeachment process this afternoon, it would take far more than 2 years to get all the way through it. Republicans getting on board with impeachment now or before election 2016 are writing their own obituaries.
User Journal

Journal: Holy shitballs, slashdot. Malicious ads being served up.

Journal by Qzukk

Love is over.

I was redirected to http://java-update-us.com/index.html?sid=42&aff_sub=wb-playanma-us&aff_sub2=am1&aff_sub3= which dropped a java_installer.exe into my Downloads folder from some ad playing on http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/07/24/1357256/empathy-for-virtual-characters-studied-with-fmri-brain-imaging around 2:30PM central time 7/24

User Journal

Journal: niwdoG 24

Journal by smitty_one_each
Playing the Godwin card when the topic is really the meaning, ownership, and usage of the symbol "Socialist" (by, for example, the U.S.S.R) is really kinda l4m3.
Yet, strangely, in character.
Shark

Journal: Burn, Baby, Burn! 1

Journal by Jeremiah Cornelius

"Sustainability" is, as far as I can see, a project designed to keep this culture - this lifestyle - afloat. The modern human economy is an engine of mass destruction. Of course, I am conflicted about this. I live at the heart of this machine; like you, I am a beneficiary of it. If it falls apart, I will probably suffer, and I don't want to. ...

I don't think any "climate movement" is going to reverse the tide of history, for one reason: We are all climate change. It is not the evil "1%" destroying the planet. We are all of us part of that destruction. This is the great, conflicted, complex situation we find ourselves in. I am climate change. You are climate change. Our culture is climate change. And climate change itself is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, if you'll pardon the terrible but appropriate pun. If we were to wake up tomorrow to the news that climate change were a hoax or a huge mistake, we would still be living in a world in which extinction rates were between 100 and 1000 times natural levels and in which we have managed to destroy 25 percent of the world's wildlife in the last four decades alone."

http://grist.org/climate-energy/i-withdraw-a-talk-with-climate-defeatist-paul-kingsnorth/

There's got to be more to life than compile-and-go.

Working...