Forgot your password?
User Journal

Journal: Just how much lying is acceptable in support of "Higher Truth"? 1

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 impor

Comment: Re:What's your point? (Score 1) 3

by smitty_one_each (#47538643) Attached to: Practical socialism

encouraging hatred towards systems that you don't understand

Alternately, I understand them all too well. I'm not a tremendous scholar of Islam, either, having only read about half the Qur'an, but I understand the dynamics of how a subset of adherents have used it for nefarious purposes. What I encourage in both cases is careful thought, so that people understand that socialism, like a baby bottle given a child long past the time to graduate to sold food, helps lock people into dependencies that stunt their human growth. But, perhaps coincidentally, empower the 1% that get to manage the bureaucracy.

If every system goes down the same pathway then you certainly have not given any reason to support your cause over any other.

I'd suggest that they all tend toward the same outcome, but where the U.S. Constitution was a rounder wheel was its careful structure of feedback loops.
I think the feedback loops supported getting rid of chattel slavery in the 19th century, and may help us to get beyond the 20th century entitlement slavery besetting us.

Comment: Re:There is a definition (Score 1) 7

by smitty_one_each (#47538593) Attached to: niwdoG

when the books are written we will recognize him as the most conservative president to date in our country

Let us be non-partisan and agree that the books will show him to have been the most systematically deceptive President in history, and a discredit to the ideals (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) that inform our Constitution.

Comment: Don't get too happy (Score 1) 72

by cpt kangarooski (#47537873) Attached to: Compromise Struck On Cellphone Unlocking Bill

This bill actually does very little. The DMCA is written very broadly, and has been commonly interpreted as to prohibit cell phone unlocking. Because Congress, in the 90s, when they enacted the stupid thing, was aware that the DMCA could go too far, but didn't want to be cautious or have to keep reexamining the law itself, they gave authority to the Library of Congress to add exceptions to it in specific cases. The process for these exceptions is that every three years, anyone who wants an exception has to plead their case. If found worthy, they get an exception. But the exception only lasts until the next rule making session, three years hence. Then it has to be reargued from scratch or lost.

Two rule making sessions ago, the Library of Congress found that cellphone unlocking was worthy of an exception. But in the most recent rule making session, they did not find it worthy, and the exception was lost; it went back to its default state of being illegal.

This law could have amended the DMCA to permanently allow cellphone unlocking. Or it could've directed the Library of Congress to always find that cellphone unlocking is allowed. But it does neither of these.

Instead it only reinstates the rule from two sessions ago for the remainder of the current session. Next year it will have to be argued again, from scratch, to the Library of Congress, or lost, again. And even if argued, it can be rejected, again.

This is less than useless. It's only a temporary patch, it doesn't even have an iota of long term effect (the rules don't take precedent into account, and this doesn't change it), and we've wasted all this effort getting it instead of something worthwhile.

Comment: Re:There is a definition (Score 1) 7

by smitty_one_each (#47537581) Attached to: niwdoG

If you were only trying to say that they were using the word, then you would have been factual. You were, however, plainly trying to call them actual socialists - which is completely inaccurate. As I have stated multiple times now over the past several days, politicians can place whatever words they want in their (or their party's) description, but that doesn't mean they are accurate.

Oh, so, like your bogus attempts to call Obama "conservative", then?

Comment: Re:I by no means missed the point (Score 1) 32

by smitty_one_each (#47537567) Attached to: Funniest /. article in a while

It is a false dilemma to say one is a doormat just because they don't protest or fight.
My opinion of the Bible and its teachings is that we are supposed to love and do good to one another, including our enemies. Instead of trying to bring down Obama or the Left or the Progressives or whoever, spend that time lifting up the poor and the needy.

The absolute best thing we can do to lift up the poor and needy is to promote policies (and by "policies" I mean the public law and governance that is religion-neutral in nature) providing equality of opportunity, not the equality of condition found upon the Progressive plantation.
Concern for the poor and the needy is something we need to do on an individual and church basis.
Among the hilarious conceits of the modern liars is that we have to have "separation of church and state", but then apply the doctrines of the Bible to social services anyway. Stay beautiful, please.
Rightly dividing the Word of Truth will show that "love thy neighbor" means your actual neighbor, not something involving a faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy.

Comment: Re:Two words... (Score 1) 5

by smitty_one_each (#47537537) Attached to: You Want Impeachment? Knock Yourselves Out
It is not exactly clear that Joe Biden's rodeo clown act would be relatively less talented than Pres'ent Obama's.
If your argument is that Biden is less of a spineless coward, and therefore more likely to make war on the Semi-Conscious Liberation Army thugs streaming out of Bulungi, then your case is not entirely without merit.
The better anti-impeachment case, I feel, is the one that says Obama's almost seemingly stoned detachment from reality, cruising around scooping up cash from rubes while the world burns, is the best anti-Democrat and anti-Hillary advertising available, albeit at a tremendous cost. #OccupyResoluteDesk's last two years of diaper overflow could crash the entire Progressive project, clearing the way for something like, which, carefully managed in a way the Affordable Care Act was not, could lead to tangible improvement for all races, creeds, sexual geometries. . .pretty much everyone.

Comment: There is a definition (Score 1) 7

by smitty_one_each (#47529585) Attached to: niwdoG's_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

I think calling someone a Nazi lands somewhere between lame and tasteless.
Help me out: how does pointing out that a symbol is an acronym comprised of other symbols, e.g. . . .

. . .constitute labeling comparing you to anything? The only thing you were encouraged to own (that is, acknowledge) was the literal presence of the symbol "Socialism" in the acronyms of both a political party and a country. Milady, thou dost protest too much, methinks. But that, at least, is in character.

Comment: Re:I by no means missed the point (Score 1) 32

by smitty_one_each (#47529567) Attached to: Funniest /. article in a while
If you did not writer this reply below on the page, at least take this as constructive feedback:

Well, every time you (and not just you, but a lot of conservative Christians) protest against the Left or Progressives or wish somebody go after Obama or Congress or the Feds for all the illegal shit they do (and I'm not saying they aren't doing it), you are not following the Lord's word to turn the other cheek.

Some principles of Biblical analysis are:
(a) take the whole counsel of God, that is, every principle you draw should be in harmony with the rest of it, and you shouldn't be cherry-picking lone bits, merely because they seem to make a convenient point,
(b) take every utterance in context, the full who/what/where/when/why/how.
And so (you) make a good point that running around being vengeful is not in keeping with much of any of the positive message of the Word.
Also not in keeping: being a doormat, or tolerating injustice.
Is your opinion of the Bible and its teachings so simplistic and bloody-minded that you think, as a logical consequence, it should render human beings as doormats?

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin