Did Guistra get the contracts?
To summarize the article, it comes down to 2 keys: Diet and Exercise. What is never talked about (sometimes hinted at or briefly touched on) is the 3rd Key:
Emotional Bandwidth (or perhaps, emotional strength or support.)
The author did say that at 1 or 2 points that weightloss certainly requires discipline, but that doesn't really explain it fully.
In order to be truly successful at achieving a healthy weight on a long term basis, one needs a good deal of emotional support/strength/will-power/whathaveyou. This is why when you're part of a Weight Watchers group or are part of a team that trains regularly or you have a personal trainer, things tend to go well.
When life is not going so well, many of us compensate by stopping the hard workouts and eating more (both of which make us feel better in the short term.) Then once we get used to the extra feeling of more food and sitting around, it becomes habit.
More needs to be said about how to bolster Emotional Bandwidth (strength, support, discipline, etc.)
I've found Metacritic to be a good aggregator of scores, but more importantly, the "users" scores (and reviews) tend to be more reliable in terms of not being overly critical of games that are generally pretty good, but don't meet the expectations of "hard core" gamers.
I just got an Acer Aspire V15 Nitro and one of the things I like about it, is that it runs quite cool even after compiling software for half an hour. Then again, that doesn't require the NVIDIA card to do anything, and I don't know how that would affect the temperature. As I just got it, my experience with it is limited, but I like it so far. It's a very fast machine.
This article is basically saying that research and innovation are bad. That's fucked up if you ask me.
or as a byproduct of fission, that's the source of most Helium on Earth (alpha particles are Helium nuclei).
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.
... you did seem to lament the courts' inaction
Not in any way, no, I did not.
You're a liar.
When talking about transparency, it's yours that is the most obvious...
I agree. I am nearly completely transparent and obvious and clear. I lack pretense or disguise.
... exactly the way your financiers want it
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.
... with its present day monolithic two-face one party system. Not a single independent in the house. Smells very bad...
There's no objective reason why it's a bad thing.
Of course not, you dope!
I'm a dope because you
... you believe the charade is for real
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
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
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.