You’re ignoring the second part of that post, in which I wrote “Not a big deal at all (especially as I partially agree with LHOD about it)”.
[The reason I only partially agree with you about it is because I happen to think that Gruber’s attitude most probably an accurate reflection of what many - though not necessarily all - people involved in that bill intended. But I do agree that you can’t prove it from Gruber and it’s a mistake to give him some sort of outsize role in the bill in an attempt to do so.]
But what’s of interest to me here is that you now seem to be conceding that you did in fact call him dude in an attempt to convey “that this guy, however influential, was never …”, as I suspected. Your initial response, when asked about it by Fuzzy_wuzzy was (post #155) “No, I can’t, except that it’s a word I use all the time”.
Hmm …
There’s no irony at all. Boehner did not interpret the law as requiring any sort of euthanasia or assisted suicide, so there was no twisting of meaning involved. He predicted that there was a possibility that it could lead to that situation. You can disagree with that prediction (& I think it’s likely overblown, myself) but it’s not in any way comparable to misrepresenting the law, or the words of one’s ideological opponents.
These kinds of slippery slope arguments go on all the time. One side raises these arguments and the other side claims it’s far-fetched. Claiming that the actual law says something other than what it says is something else entirely. That’s more analogous to claiming that politicians from opposing political parties said things they didn’t say.
Gruber has been a WH ACA/Obamacare advisor since day one. Gruber was a holdover from Romneycare. Gruber was selected because of his work with Romneycare. It can be argued that Gruber’s testimony would be both knowledgeable and pertinent to any case presented to the SCOTUS.
Even if Obama now says that he never met the dude.
The vote for passage in the U.S. House was held up while the Democrats scrambled to finally provide a complete copy of the bill to the House and to the Congressmen in order to meet U.S. House rules.
How do you debate a bill that hasn’t been made available in it’s final form?
No, I’m not conceding that. I use the word dude a lot. My use of the word "dude was not my point. My point was contained in the sentences I used. Is this really so difficult?
And yet, Boehner’s prediction is included in articles about the lie of the year. While you’re splitting a very fine hair between death panels and slippery slopes, other more objective analysts of the story consider them to be of a piece. Your disagreement is with them, not me.
Look over this timeline. Which vote in particular do you think was made with a copy of the bill substantially different from the one that had been debated ad nauseum?
Well the point itself is not difficult at all. In fact it’s so incredibly simple that there was no reason for your entire post if you were merely restating your earlier point and not addressing your usage of the word dude - which was the subject of the post you responded to.
Figuring out why you would write it in response to a post which was on a subject that you now claim your response had nothing to do with would be more difficult.
I agree that it has some relation to the general subject. Stories frequently include items of this sort. It’s on the reader to discern what’s actually being said, instead of simple-mindedly saying “hey, it was mentioned in the same article so it’s all the same thing”.
Even besides for the above, this would only be true to the extent that you’re just regurgitating stuff you’ve read elsewhere and not expressing an opinion of your own.
They can be valid or not in a given case, but they’re not a logical fallacy. (Possibly you’re not adequately informed about the concept of logical fallacy or are using it incorrectly.)
At this point I have no idea what you’re talking about. Which entire post, which earlier point, what are you talking about?
Except that’s patently untrue. I’ve expressed my opinion, and offered an objective source to show support for the opinion. That’s, y’know, how things work around here.
Yeaaaaahhhhh, nice try. This is a great example of a fallacious slippery slope because it suggests something absurd may follow from something benign.
One form of the fallacious slippery slipe is, “If A, then necessarily B.” That’s not Boehner’s form.
Another is, “If A, then B might result,” when there’s zero chance that B will result. This is the form Boehner used.
Sigh, as has been pointed out to you previously multiple times, Pelosi wasn’t saying that she wasn’t going to tell the voters what was in the law until it is passed.
Instead she was bemoaning the fact that there was so much obfuscation and false claims made by Republicans that the actual content of the law was being totally lost to the debate. No matter how much thy attempted to educate the public as to what was actually in the bill the Republican Noise machine would distort it into an unrecognizable state. The only way to show the public what the bill contained would be for them to see for themselves what actually happened when the law took effect. i.e. the proof is in the pudding, not in the empty rhetoric surrounding it.
While I’m at it, regarding the “lie” by Obama about “you can keep your healthplan…” it is once again important to see the context in which it was given. Once again it started with Republican lies claiming that the ACA would be a total government take over of the Insurance business in which the government would force everyone to take a government run Obamacare policy that would prevent you from ever seeing your old doctor. Obama was trying say (correctly) that there wouldn’t be a massive take over by the government that would radically alter everyone’s insurance. Not that Obamacare would magically make it so that insurance companies could never change their policies.
As an analogy, I imagine Jindal as governaor suggests that the sewer pipes need to be expanded. The Democrats counter that doing so could lead alligators to crawl through the sewers and eat people in their bathrooms. To staunch this Obama claims that “No one is going to get attacked by an alligator because of this expansion.” However two months later, a who is installing sewer lines across a swamp gets attacked by an alligator, and Democrats then jump gleefully on Jindals’s “lie”.
Leaving aside that you haven’t offered any support, the point here is that if you acknowledge it as your opinion then you don’t get to claim my disagreement is not with you.
You’re backing off from “logical fallacy” to “fallacious”. Which is good. Even better would be if you were more forthright about it, but even as is it’s an improvement. Progress is being made.
Pelosi did not provide the voters with a detailed report of what was actually in the bill. Gruber wasn’t recommending telling the voters what was in the bill because the smart voters wouldn’t support the bill. And Pelosi thanked Gruber for his efforts. A lot of Democrats have thanked Gruber for his efforts. As you yourself say, the general idea was that the public would know what the bill contained AFTER the law took effect.
You really do need to familiarize yourself with the facts. The bill was debated for a fucking year and a half. The contents were defended ad nauseam. The bill actually had fewer words than Sarah Palin’s "auto"biography. If anyone didn’t read it, or didn’t know what it does, that’s their own fucking fault. That includes you.
Got any answers yet as to why you think the Dems worked so hard to pass it anyway?
No, it’s not OK for them to deceive the public, because part of a good government is the people getting what they want, even if other people think it’s bad for them
This is amazingly difficult for certain strains of people (blue state culture, i.e. elitist) to understand. There are other people in the world, with their own desires, predelictions, talents, faults, and preferences. You do NOT know what’s good for people better than they do
And so liberal BS like that, like the book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”, is amazingly offensive and insensitive.
A few years later, when the project is completed and the people realize how much better off they are, the Democrats claim it was their idea all along. Meanwhile, the Reps have nominated the governor who really did get it done for President, although he denies everything in his campaign.
If I had to guess I would say Obama wasn’t consciously lying about it - meaning he didn’t think he was lying at the time he said those things.
My guess would be that he - like so many advocates of government changes and reforms - simply failed to appreciate the full consequences, both direct and indirect, of what he was doing. He probably thought in some vague sort of way that he could mandate stricter standards for medical plans and the insurers would continue to issue the “same” plans but in better form, with his new and improved plan terms. So no one lost their plan - they just had their plans improved. And as for the extra cost of those enhancements, well most probably there would be so many offsetting cost savings from the great health care reform bill that would offset it, and if not, well these insurance companies are rolling in so much cash as it is that they could easily hold the line on cost increases, and if they don’t want to - well the law will allow oversight from insurance commissioners. Or something. Or maybe something else. Whatever.
Not that this excuses it, or anything. But that’s my guess - he probably had only a very vague idea of how his vague and lofty goals, as translated into the actual law, would play out in practice.
Actually, there was a reason for restating my earlier point: you DUDEGATERS kept harping absurdly on the word dude, suggesting terrible nefarious motives behind my use of the word “dude”. I was making allowances for the possibility that it was a genuine misunderstanding on your part, not a hilarious attempt at a junior Breitbarting of someone.
The grasshopper in this case has not overtaken the master; you’re going to need to study harder if you want to take someone’s words out of context to destroy them. Dude.
Bullshit. I offered the politifact link as support. You can’t handwave it away. And lemme break it down for you: when I say your disagreement is not “with me” in this case, that means it’s not merely with me. I’m terribly sorry I left out the word “merely,” having no idea it’d be so confusing without it.
I gather that you must think you’ve made some sort of salient response here, what with all these quotes and verbiage, but I can’t figure out what it is, and your merely thinking you’ve made a point is not much of an indicator.
So my point stands. You meant to denigrate Gruber’s role by your use of the term “dude”, but you chose a less than forthright manner of doing so.
Fortunately I didn’t have to. I explained earlier why the politifact link did not make your point.
Well in case you ever do want to educate yourself about the difference between a logical fallacy and a fallacious argument, there are resources availabe. You can try Wikipedia, for example - it’s in the very first paragraph.