But would you abide?
The falsity of your claim was in it’s implication that Boehner’s statement was about “death panels”. You have nothing there.
I addressed the Politifact cite because it had at least some superficial connection to your claim, in that it mentioned Boehner’s statement in an article with the heading “Death Panels”. Your other cite didn’t even do that.
Again, this is about whether Boehner has made claims about death panels. The fact that FactCheck.org thinks Boehner’s concerns about a slippery slope to euthenasia are “a stretch” have nothing to do with this.
You know very well what Boehner wished his listeners to believe as a result of him saying it. You also know very well how false it was, and that he knew it. It’s time to drop this one, friend.
What I know very well is that if your MO is that everything your ideological opponents say will be interpreted in the most malevolent way possible, with all manner of sinister intent attributed to and inserted into it, then you can twist anything they say into a malicious lie.
What I’m talking about is what Boehner actually said.
Suit yourself, but this isn’t really the hill you want to die on.
Let not your heart be troubled.
Your concern is touching but unnecessary.
Really, so your entire point is that alarmist talk about government-encouraged euthanasia is not death-panelish? Okay, dude. Glad you’ve made your view clear on that.
Exactly the point, and you shouldn’t listen to the folks doing this to Gruber.
Oh.
Edit: Wait, I see–you mean, Boehner read what the ACA law said, and twisted that in the most malevolent way possible, talking about how innocuous provisions of the law could lead to government-encouraged euthanasia, and you don’t approve of attributing and inserting this sort of sinister intent to what others say, right?
Note that I’m doing the opposite here, instead interpreting what you’re saying in the most reasonable possible light, attributing to you all sorts of benevolent intents in an effort to make what you’re saying not a virtual satire of cognitive dissonance. And you’re welcome!
The suggestion is not that dude is a perjorative. The suggestion is that LHOD is attempting to minimize the role that Gruber played in the ACA - and by extension, the extent to which his sentiments can be attributed to his precious ACA as a whole - by referring to him as “dude”. It’s a continuation of his remarks in an earlier post, in which he referred to his “having only learned of this Gruber dude fifteen minutes ago”. From a technical standpoint the fact that he called him a dude doesn’t logically mean that Gruber had a minor role in crafting the ACA, but there’s no question that a reference to “this one dude” suggests a less important person than “one person” might, and the fact that it leaves him wriggle room when challenged on it is all for the better for his purposes.
Not a big deal at all (especially as I partially agree with LHOD about it) and par for the course here, but FWIW it’s likely that this was his intent.
Not so.
Glad I could clear that up for you. Anything else you need help with, just let me know.
Is too. :rolleyes:
If you think you’re convincing anyone with a serious, thoughtful, fact-based discussion, one that shows your and your party’s views to be more reasonable and responsible, with that approach, then you need to reconsider.
If you think your assessment of who I’m convicing (or your assessment of anything else, frankly) carries any weight, then you need to reconsider. But more importantly, your premise that my goal here is to convince people of things is itself erroneous. I’ve discussed my purpose here earlier in this thread.
When you’re ready to be serious, do please let us know.
Well put.
Gruber has always been a major player in the Democrat’s strategy to convince stupid voters to blindly support a bill that was incomplete, incomprehensible, and deceptive. Gruber was a holdover from the Romneycare team. Gruber was one of the few people who met with the Democrat strategists inside the Whitehouse and discussed the issue with Obama. It was reported that the Governator of California had spoken to Gruber about establishing some form of Romneycare in California. Gruber has been around a long time and dealt with many of the Democrat leadership.
Now they don’t know who he is or why he was there. “Gruber? We ain’t got no Gruber! We don’t need no Gruber! We don’t have to show you any stinking Gruber!”
Pelosi insulted the voters when she said, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. She compounded the insult by adding, “away from the fog of controversy”. The honest and transparent way of dealing with the “fog of controversy” is to make the bill public and then defend what is actually in the bill. It would then no longer matter what the speculation was. The voters could then decide for themselves. But that wasn’t the Gruber way.
What a lovely analysis. Had you heard of Gruber before this faux scandal? Did you follow ACA with interest when it was being debated? My point is, and remains, that this guy, however influential, was never a part of the highly public debates about the law, and whatever his beliefs about people, however interpreted, aren’t necessarily relevant to the larger discussion of public policy, except inasmuch as they present a cheap and less-than-forthright “gotcha.”
Confession time: in my heart of hearts I suspected you didn’t mean it that way. I was interpreting you in the most benevolent possible fashion, because if you didn’t mean it that way, you were ignoring a major irony in your post.
Democrats should have produced the bill before the vote. Defend the actual contents of the bill before the vote. Only then should a vote be held.
I think this goes too far. Whether or not Gruber was the figurehead in public debate for the ACA isn’t really relevant. The point is that Gruber had a signficant role in the crafting of the law. It is misleading to downplay his role. From the wiki:
Gruber is also on point in the design and development of the Vermont single payer plan. In other words, he is and was a very influencial dude. His remarks don’t impact the current legal questions since those should be answered by the text, but they are revealing into the process that crafted the ACA. If the analysis ever gets to the stage where intent matters, then his comments become more relevant.
I doubt that the SCOTUS, or the Congress, or the U.S. public is buying what you’re selling. When you’re elected the Grand and Exalted Imperial Wizzer of the States of America, you can downgrade the SCOTUS or remove it entirely. :smack:
The point Pelosi, the highest ranking Democrat in the U.S. House and should well have been aware of what’s in the most contentious bill in the U.S. House and how it was being marketed to the voters, was making was that she wasn’t going to tell the voters what was in the bill until after it became law.
I believe they did. There was, if I recall correctly, a claim that the very final text was released with insufficient time to evaluate it before the vote–but there were no significant changes in the final text from the version that had been discussed for months up to that point. Do you have some cite to the contrary?