Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's 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?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • The Obama Administration couldn't replace the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 with anything else in the time remaining even if they wanted to (and weren't themselves owned by the insurance industry like every other elected official in DC). There simply isn't enough time left in the Administration to do it; especially with the least productive congress in the history of ever. You should spend your time on a different conspiracy theory, we're stuck with this failure of a law for the foreseeabl
    • You're still coloring within the idiotic lines that the health care is some sort of natural right or entitlement, and that a leap of idiocy like the ACA, or Single Prayer, is somehow worthwhile, or even existentially attainable in at a non-disastrous level.
      Until we grasp that, at the federal level, we really only want to pursue multi-state and international issues, we are assured of staggering from disaster to disaster until SMOD [urbandictionary.com] take us.
      • Smitty, there you go making shit up out of nothing yet again. Not once have I supported HIIBA 2010. This conversation would go much better if you would stop insisting otherwise in spite of the facts.
        • You DO understand that, your cheesy protestations aside, We All Know that the ObamaCare River of Lies dumps into the Gulf of Single Prayer?
          This is not a "conspiracy theory". This is the conspiracy facts that have been unfolding since Princess Pelosi squeezed out that loaf in '09.
          • We All Know that the ObamaCare River of Lies dumps into the Gulf of Single Prayer

            No, we do not know that. You claim that, but you have not once offered up anything resembling facts to support that notion.

            This is not a "conspiracy theory". This is the conspiracy facts

            So apparently, you feel that if a conspiracy theory is repeated enough times, it becomes fact simply by repetition then? You certainly haven't offered any facts to support the notion that you are harping here. It doesn't matter how many conservative blogs you can come up with who voice their opinions on the matter; they are not facts (beyond the fact that they are the opinions of p

            • No, we do not know that.

              Given the level of dishonesty offered by this Administration, e.g. the "destruction" of Lerner's hard drive and emails (for one of a galaxy of examples) we can confidently suspect the worst.

              So apparently, you feel that if a conspiracy theory is repeated enough times, it becomes fact simply by repetition then?

              Well, Gruber seems to think so, with his "speak-o" nonsense. But no, I'm talking about a nearly six year track record of wretched foolishness. Hardly a rush to judgement.

              • No, we do not know that.

                Given the level of dishonesty offered by this Administration, e.g. the "destruction" of Lerner's hard drive and emails (for one of a galaxy of examples) we can confidently suspect the worst.

                So again, you substitute what you want to believe, and your favorite conspiracies, for truth. You have no facts to support your paranoia.

                So apparently, you feel that if a conspiracy theory is repeated enough times, it becomes fact simply by repetition then?

                Well, Gruber seems to think so, with his "speak-o" nonsense.

                Gruber who? I need more than a last name to know who you are semi-citing as a source.

                But no, I'm talking about a nearly six year track record of wretched foolishness.

                OK, now sing it with me...

                A waffling we go...
                A waffling we go...
                Hi-ho, the derry-o
                A waffling we go!


                Take a stand, is the administration competent or not? The term "foolishness" goes with your "rodeo clown" silliness and indicates that you believe the administration to be incompet

                • Take a stand, is the administration competent or not?

                  They are competent at campaigning and " winning [wsj.com]" elections.

                  If you want to present that case then you need to abandon your bits about them going for socialist world domination as the two are fully incompatible since no incompetent clown could even aspire to pull that off.

                  What you say is certainly true in an objective sense. The point you seem to miss is that, for an ultimately incompetent clown, the self-awareness to grasp the unattainability of the world domination isn't going to be there. Especially in our case, the total information control needed to ensure that a disaster like ObamaCare fails into the ultimate failure of Single Prayer (at a controlled rate) just can't be done. So you see the effort to paper over

                  • Take a stand, is the administration competent or not?

                    They are competent at campaigning and "winning" elections.

                    If those are the only competencies of the current administration then you have just admitted that your conspiracy theories regarding them preparing to invoke a new world order are completely unsubstantiated. Thank you.

                    If you want to present that case then you need to abandon your bits about them going for socialist world domination as the two are fully incompatible since no incompetent clown could even aspire to pull that off.

                    The point you seem to miss is that, for an ultimately incompetent clown, the self-awareness to grasp the unattainability of the world domination isn't going to be there.

                    No. A clown of any stripes would not attempt world domination. A self-aware clown is aware of his role to distract attention and would not attempt anything else. An ignorant or incompetent clown would just run around pulling silly tricks for an audience.

                    Especially in our case, the total information control needed to ensure that a disaster like ObamaCare fails into the ultimate failure of Single Prayer (at a controlled rate) just can't be done.

                    So if it can't be done, then why

                    • All I see in your reply is the butthurt of someone who's understanding that his false idols, Socialism in general and Barack Obama in particular, are crashing down.
                      I'm standing by for you, whenever you want to come clean and sober up.
                    • Wow, how many off-topic memes from the conservative blogosphere can you combine in one response to me? You funneled so much complete BS into that one that you almost - accidentally - gave your own answer to the question that your JE title is asking here.
                    • Again, while I certainly have engaged in sarcasm and hyperbole with you, I am absolutely not a liar, and certainly not a typical Lefty like Gruber, who lies like he urinates, to the extent that he can differentiate between lying and a bodily function.
                    • I am absolutely not a liar

                      The only way that those previous statements are not lies coming from you is if you are indeed so blissfully ignorant and intentionally repeatedly ignoring my writings that you have no clue whatsoever of what you are replying to. Under any other set of circumstances you would know that the allegations in your previous comment [slashdot.org] were total bullshit that are completely and utterly refuted by the comments that I have written here.

                    • It is certainly true that I have long since discarded the idea of taking you seriously. That happened sometime last year, I think, around the time you tried to accuse me of calling for assassination.
                    • It is certainly true that I have long since discarded the idea of taking you seriously

                      Which leaves the question then of why you bother reading (parts of) my comments and "replying" to them.

                      around the time you tried to accuse me of calling for assassination.

                      When you show complete disregard for the law in the name of politics you should not pretend that you are somehow capable of preventing such an outcome. If you go back and actually read the comments you'll see I never accused you of directly calling for assassination but rather pointed out that once you remove all protections of the law that are intended to protect everyone you should be aware of the lik

                    • If you go back and actually read the comments you'll see I never accused you of directly calling for assassination but rather pointed out that once you remove all protections of the law that are intended to protect everyone you should be aware of the likely outcome.

                      You trolled, and I called you on it. Like the time you accused me of plagiarism, on a piece that had no by-line. You just have zero (0) credibility with me. Sorry if that hurts your pride.

                    • If you go back and actually read the comments you'll see I never accused you of directly calling for assassination but rather pointed out that once you remove all protections of the law that are intended to protect everyone you should be aware of the likely outcome.

                      You trolled, and I called you on it.

                      i would like to say that suggests that you actually went back and read the comments (which would be the first time you did so in their entirety) and found that indeed I did not accuse you of directly calling for the assassination of President Lawnchair. However your history of behavior gives me reason to expect that you would not be willing to lower yourself to such an act, as learning is below you when it involves facts that do not support your world view.

                      Sorry if that hurts your pride.

                      So says the person bursting at the seams with pr

                    • You're spraypainting the history, and relying upon my lack of time to go back and call your bluff, which is true, for now. Maybe a bit of Python to download all of my comments, and build an indexed database of them is in order. It would certainly help improve your accuracy.
      • I submit that before *any* right, are the needs indelible to the Right to Life, and until those are fulfilled for every citizen, all other rights are merely privileges granted to cronies in proportion to their usefulness to the oligarchy; nothing more, nothing less. Even the right of private property is worthless without protection of the basic needs.

        • I'm comfortable with interpreting the 14th Amendment to preclude abortion in most circumstances.
          • That's a bit backwards, however. If the Right to Life isn't how we interpret the Constitution (sure doesn't seem to be how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution) then all we have is specific versions of the Right to Life handed out to groups as we see fit, and the Constitution, not respect for human life, is the foundation of law.

            Health care is a natural right because life is a natural right, not because the 14th Amendment should be used to grant it to [women, blacks, Jews, Catholics, the unborn,

            • I don't buy off on the Second Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org]. Not that they are necessarily bad in the abstract. However, the attempt to slow-roll them into being over the last 70 years has been a trifle whiffy. And I mean that with maximal understatement.
              • I was talking more about the Declaration of Independence [archives.gov] with its enumeration of "self evident" rights in a specific order, and using those to interpret the Constitution. Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights is a more specific application of this; but is a federalist, central government solution to a basic problem that I believe would be FAR better handled locally.

                • We differ on the definition of federalist, then: FDR was a statist, and the intellectual heir of Wilson, who hated the Constitution.
                  Federalism properly confines the government to the delegated, enumerated powers, not the über-state ideas espoused by FDR.
            • by gmhowell (26755)

              Much of healthcare is devoted to taking care of people who are throwing away their own right to their own life. (The overweight smoker speaks from experience)

              • True enough. I've never smoked, but I am overweight, and realize it is a form of suicide- if a very tasty and slow one. But I'd point out that if we had more localized solutions for food (eliminating the need to ship and store food except for famine protection) we'd eliminate much of that.

  • 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.

    • And by "encouraged" he meant that the residents would pressure their governors. Sweet river of lies.
      • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        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.

        • I'm still looking for a shred of anything at any point having to do with the ACA that was sincere and honorable.
          • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

            They meant well, though, right? No matter what bad they do, they meant well, and that makes up for it. You know, like Hitler. [huffingtonpost.com]

            • Did they? Can you point to anything past the thinnest veneer of lip service to good intentions?
              • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                Did Hitler mean well?

                • Objectively, I think not.
                  In his madness, who knows what he thought?
                  • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

                    I think you're missing my point.

                    The article I linked to said Hitler was bad, but at least he meant well, unlike that evil Bush.

                    I was being mocking, parodying leftist idiocy that will mitigate -- at least, by comparison -- the most dishonorable acts if we can pretend that they were done with noble intent.

    • At which point we get the steaming pile that is Cover Oregon, in which any subsidy you might get is swallowed up by the 10x increase in expense for the insurance.

      • What government regulation never seems to do is minimize cost. Nor maximize availability. Nor do much other than keep bureaucrats going to meetings.

Never make anything simple and efficient when a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful.

Working...