ACA: ...call it the stupidity of the American voter

[DJofSD]

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/09/caught-camera-obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law/

Caught on Camera: Obamacare Architect Admits Deceiving Americans to Pass Law

In a newly surfaced video, one of Obamacare’s architects admits a “lack of transparency” helped the Obama administration and congressional Democrats pass the Affordable Care Act. The conservative group American Commitment posted Jonathan Gruber’s remarks, reportedly from an Oct. 17, 2013, event, on YouTube.

Bottom line: the end justifies the means.

[OntheRail]

POSOTUS and this guy should have thumb screws applied and be hung from the Washington Monument. Then truth sticks and transparency tomatoes offer to the public.

[ArlJim78]

The same can be said about the majority of Washington's spending programs and runaway powergrabs, they rely on the stupidity of people. Normally they're not so candid about it but it's not only healthcare where they bank on people not noticing, not caring, or outright stupidity.

[davew]

I feel most of the congressional Democrats were fooled as well - will always remember Pelosi saying we got to pass it to find out whats in it.

[Clocker]

The original video was on the U. of Penn web site, which hosted the conference where the comments were made. The video has been taken down and the university is denying media permission to air it.

[mostpost]

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/09/caught-camera-obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law/

Caught on Camera: Obamacare Architect Admits Deceiving Americans to Pass Law



Bottom line: the end justifies the means.
Gruber is absolutely correct about the stupidity of SOME of the American voters. There were death panels; except their weren't. The ACA was socialism; except it wasn't, all of the insurance policies were sold by private companies, run by private companies and paid off by private companies. The law says you can keep your policy if you like it; except it does not say that. In fact it describes policies which can no longer be said. What some politician said years before the law was even written is no relevant. The ACA stole money from senior citizens medicare benefits in order to pay for the ACA; except it did no such thing. The money that was taken from Medicare was taken from subsidies the federal government was paying to private companies which were selling Medicare Advantage plans.

All of these myths have been proven false, yet the fools continue to post them for the other fools.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... What some politician said years before the law was even written is no relevant. ...

Ain't that the truth. About the only one.

[Clocker]

Ain't that the truth. About the only one.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

[mostpost]

I feel most of the congressional Democrats were fooled as well - will always remember Pelosi saying we got to pass it to find out whats in it.
Whenever I see someone post that quote by Pelosi, I question their understanding of how government works and how bills are passed. Nancy Pelosi is a lot smarter than you. That's not an insult; she is also a lot smarter than me. She understands how bills are passed and what happens after they are passed.

Changes are made to bills right up to the final vote, so while you might hope for a certain result; that is not guaranteed until the bill is passed. Even then there are no guarantees. Once the bill is passed and signed into law, it has to be implemented. The appropriate department has to publish rules relating to the new law. Sometimes these rules may change the meaning of parts of the law.

Someone may challenge the law in court. That has certainly been done in the case of the ACA. Courts must decide on how to interpret what Congress has written. Nancy Pelosi was wrong. We don't find out what is in the law after it passes. Sometimes we need to wait years longer to find out.

[Clocker]

she is also a lot smarter than me.

Wow! A second acorn in the same day. :D

“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels. It’s cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels.” -- Nancy Pelosi.

“Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” -- Nancy Pelosi.

“Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program.” -- Nancy Pelosi

“And we have to confer with the Qataris, who have told me over and over again that Hamas is a humanitarian organization.” -- Nancy Pelosi

[AndyC]

Whenever I see someone post that quote by Pelosi, I question their understanding of how government works and how bills are passed. Nancy Pelosi is a lot smarter than you. That's not an insult; she is also a lot smarter than me. She understands how bills are passed and what happens after they are passed.

Changes are made to bills right up to the final vote, so while you might hope for a certain result; that is not guaranteed until the bill is passed. Even then there are no guarantees. Once the bill is passed and signed into law, it has to be implemented. The appropriate department has to publish rules relating to the new law. Sometimes these rules may change the meaning of parts of the law.

Someone may challenge the law in court. That has certainly been done in the case of the ACA. Courts must decide on how to interpret what Congress has written. Nancy Pelosi was wrong. We don't find out what is in the law after it passes. Sometimes we need to wait years longer to find out.

If Congress is going to pass the biggest piece of legislation in 30 years don't you think it would be a good idea to know something about the law before you vote on it?

Changes are made to bills by votes so theoretically you should know pretty much everything in it. The law is the rules! It's regulations that are written to make sure the rules are implemented. Only Obama's administration writes the rules after the law is passed.

[boxcar]

Whenever I see someone post that quote by Pelosi, I question their understanding of how government works and how bills are passed. Nancy Pelosi is a lot smarter than you. That's not an insult; she is also a lot smarter than me. She understands how bills are passed and what happens after they are passed.

Changes are made to bills right up to the final vote, so while you might hope for a certain result; that is not guaranteed until the bill is passed. Even then there are no guarantees. Once the bill is passed and signed into law, it has to be implemented. The appropriate department has to publish rules relating to the new law. Sometimes these rules may change the meaning of parts of the law.

Someone may challenge the law in court. That has certainly been done in the case of the ACA. Courts must decide on how to interpret what Congress has written. Nancy Pelosi was wrong. We don't find out what is in the law after it passes. Sometimes we need to wait years longer to find out.

Funny how in your universe putting the cart before the horse is considered perfectly normal. It's normal to pass legislation even when people are ignorant of what is really in it.

Long live Ignorance! :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Sometimes these rules may change the meaning of parts of the law.


Now there is a statement worthy of Nancy Pelosi.

So if an administrative agency wants to, it can write rules and regulations changing the meaning of the law. That might be standard operating procedure in Wonderland, but here in the USA, that is called the executive branch unconstitutionally usurping the powers of the legislative branch.

[mostpost]

Wow! A second acorn in the same day. :D

“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to other fossil fuels. It’s cheap, abundant and clean compared to other fossil fuels.” -- Nancy Pelosi.
Natural gas is cheap, abundant and clean compared to other fossil fuels.
“Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” -- Nancy Pelosi.
Everyone with half a brain knows she misspoke. And I have half a brain. At the time Pelosi made that statement we were losing 500,000 jobs a month.

“Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program.” -- Nancy Pelosi

“And we have to confer with the Qataris, who have told me over and over again that Hamas is a humanitarian organization.” -- Nancy Pelosi
I need to look at the last two to comment.

[mostpost]

“And we have to confer with the Qataris, who have told me over and over again that Hamas is a humanitarian organization.” -- Nancy Pelos
This means that Pelosi thinks Hamas is a humanitarian organization? She never says that. She says the Qataris have told her that. She never says she agrees with that characterization and many other statements on the subject by Pelosi tell the opposite story.

You are also wrong about your interpretation of the first part of the sentence. "We have to confer with the Qataris" does not mean we should confer with them. It means the Qataris are the only conduit we have to Hamas. Pelosi is saying since the Qataris are insisting Hamas keeps repeating that Hamas is a humanitarian organization, they may not be a neutral conduit. Change that to they are not a neutral conduit. That is what Pelosi is saying here.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Jesus man, you're really going to waste an hour of your life going back and forth to defend Nancy Pelosi in general and to a bunch of conservatives specifically?

[FantasticDan]

Jesus man, you're really going to waste an hour of your life going back and forth to defend Nancy Pelosi in general and to a bunch of conservatives specifically?Is that topic in some way a lower standard of pointless back and forth than what normally goes on here 24/7? :p

[mostpost]

Jesus man, you're really going to waste an hour of your life going back and forth to defend Nancy Pelosi in general and to a bunch of conservatives specifically?
Jesus posts on this forum? :jump: :jump: :jump:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Is that topic in some way a lower standard of pointless back and forth than what normally goes on here 24/7? :p

Defending Pelosi?

Yeah, it's one thing to defend a principle or a belief or even some ludicrous theory about a missing jet.

But Pelosi?

Who does that?

[Clocker]

Yeah, it's one thing to defend a principle or a belief or even some ludicrous theory about a missing jet.

But Pelosi?


Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. :D

[BlueShoe]

Wow! A second acorn in the same day. :D
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day." But on second thought, when has Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or the Democratic Party, or for that matter, any of the libs on PA ever been correct two times in any 24 hour period? :rolleyes:

[AndyC]

Just watched Gruber interview on MSNBC and he continued his lying ways. Go to 31:34 of the video to watch him explain how the ACA subsidies were restricted for people signing up on state exchanges to coerce the states to participate. On MSNBC he stated emphatically how subsidies were meant for everyone and that the restriction to the state exchanges was a mere typo.

Of course he would only go on MSNBC to make such an outlandish claim.

[Clocker]

Go to 31:34 of the video to watch him explain how the ACA subsidies were restricted for people signing up on state exchanges to coerce the states to participate.

He was for coercion before he was against it? :D

Gruber was called on this point before:

Gruber explains: "My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo."

So he is recalibrating his speak-o again?

Warning to politicians and other BSers: nothing dies on the internet.

[AndyC]

He was for coercion before he was against it? :D

Gruber was called on this point before:



So he is recalibrating his speak-o again?

Warning to politicians and other BSers: nothing dies on the internet.

He also said that the 2013 comments shouldn't be taken too seriously because they were made off-the-cuff. Does that mean that he just makes stuff up when he speaks to sound interesting? Or does it mean that he is a despicable elitist who will stop at nothing to "help" us because only he is smart enough to know the answers?

[DJofSD]

He also said that the 2013 comments shouldn't be taken too seriously because they were made off-the-cuff. Does that mean that he just makes stuff up when he speaks to sound interesting? Or does it mean that he is a despicable elitist who will stop at nothing to "help" us because only he is smart enough to know the answers?
No, it means he can lie through his teeth whenever he feels like it and the only time he might consider being more forthcoming is if he is inside a courtroom.

[Clocker]

He also said that the 2013 comments shouldn't be taken too seriously because they were made off-the-cuff. Does that mean that he just makes stuff up when he speaks to sound interesting? Or does it mean that he is a despicable elitist who will stop at nothing to "help" us because only he is smart enough to know the answers?

Or it might mean that he was speaking on a panel at a big high-power conference of elites, and he was just showing off his elitist chops to see who could come up with the best put down of the stupid common folk. But he really has their best interests in mind. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

No, it means he can lie through his teeth whenever he feels like it and the only time he might consider being more forthcoming is if he is inside a courtroom.

It's not lying, it's just politics. Rahm Emanuel's brother, Zeke, is a doctor and Obama's top medical adviser. When Obama was slammed for saying if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and it turned out to be not true, Zeke came to his defense.

According to Zeke, what Obama really meant was that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, but you might have to pay more to do so. But, said Zeke, the part about paying more is the small print, and you don't put the small print in political speeches.

Do you understand that now, you typical American voter?

The small print: typical stupid American voter.

[davew]

Whenever I see someone post that quote by Pelosi, I question their understanding of how government works and how bills are passed. Nancy Pelosi is a lot smarter than you. That's not an insult; she is also a lot smarter than me. She understands how bills are passed and what happens after they are passed.

Changes are made to bills right up to the final vote, so while you might hope for a certain result; that is not guaranteed until the bill is passed. Even then there are no guarantees. Once the bill is passed and signed into law, it has to be implemented. The appropriate department has to publish rules relating to the new law. Sometimes these rules may change the meaning of parts of the law.

Someone may challenge the law in court. That has certainly been done in the case of the ACA. Courts must decide on how to interpret what Congress has written. Nancy Pelosi was wrong. We don't find out what is in the law after it passes. Sometimes we need to wait years longer to find out.

Your understanding of Congress is how it is supposed to work, not how it has been working lately. This 'comprehensive plan' was pushed through with no discussion, no amendment attempts, nothing allowed by Reid and Pelosi. Once it was passed as a law, it should have been followed as written, not having a president saying, 'well, this part we are going to wait a year or two on' - virtually making amendments to the law on his whim...


The 'no action' Republicans have over 200 House bills sent to Congress that Reid refuses to even bring up. Guess what, in a few months the president is going to be the 'no action' president, who will veto many bills.

The Affordable Care Act was presented fraudulently to the American people. As a law, it will have to be 'fixed' to become workable as an insurance reform ( possibly malpractice or medicare limiting ). The impact on the country is still too early to tell.

Whether Nancy Pelosi is or is not smarter than either of us is unclear, but she knows how Washington works. This 'transparent' administration will have a lasting impact on the Democratic party as even the diehards should be able to see the hypocrisy of the current administration.

[Clocker]

Oops, another "speak-o" video of Herr Gruber calling the American voters stupid.

Yet another video has emerged of MIT professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber calling Americans “stupid,” and bragging about how the Affordable Care Act’s drafters had to deceive the public in order to pass the law.

Story here. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/11/yet-another-video-emerges-of-obamacare-architect-calling-americans-stupid-video/)

[JustRalph]

Hello?

This guy is a douche

[Robert Goren]

The only real stupidity in the health care debate was shown by people who had known people screwed by the insurance companies and yet still believed it could not happen to them. That if faced with large medical bills, their company would suddenly grow a heart when dealing with them or that their employer would actually have some pull to help them out.

[tucker6]

The only real stupidity in the health care debate was shown by people who had known people screwed by the insurance companies and yet still believed it could not happen to them. That if faced with large medical bills, their company would suddenly grow a heart when dealing with them or that their employer would actually have some pull to help them out.
Why should the insurance company 'grow a heart'? They made a contract with the consumer to provide certain benefits for a certain price. As long as they fulfill their obligations, what more do you want from them? Listen, sometimes life hands you a bag of poop. Quit asking others to take the bag from you. Unfortunately, you've been suckered into the "evil insurance company" mantra, when the root of health care costs are based elsewhere, like drug companies, hospitals, and our penchant for litigating everything under the sun without limits.

[Robert Goren]

Why should the insurance company 'grow a heart'? They made a contract with the consumer to provide certain benefits for a certain price. As long as they fulfill their obligations, what more do you want from them? Listen, sometimes life hands you a bag of poop. Quit asking others to take the bag from you. Unfortunately, you've been suckered into the "evil insurance company" mantra, when the root of health care costs are based elsewhere, like drug companies, hospitals, and our penchant for litigating everything under the sun without limits. The point of my post is that they didn't and they didn't have too in many states. The policy you got when you sign up was not worth the paper it was written on. I was not sucked up by the "evil mantra", I lived through it. In my state, at least, you could not sue a health insurance if they refused to pay. Somewhere you got the idea that insurance companies were bound by the policies they wrote. They were not. I learned that the hard way to the turn of over a quarter of a million dollars. You are one of the ignorant ones. Sorry but the reality does not fit into your neatly packaged views of the way you think the world is, in this case anyway.

[tucker6]

The point of my post is that they didn't and they didn't have too in many states. The policy you got when you sign up was not worth the paper it was written on. I was not sucked up by the "evil mantra", I lived through it. In my state, at least, you could not sue a health insurance if they refused to pay. Somewhere you got the idea that insurance companies were bound by the policies they wrote. They were not. I learned that the hard way to the turn of over a quarter of a million dollars. You are one of the ignorant ones. Sorry but the reality does not fit into your neatly packaged views of the way you think the world is, in this case anyway.
The rules are different in SC. I can appeal to the state for a decision I disagree with. Maybe Nebraska should have this simple rule. Seems fair. I don't know the background to your story, but there are two sides to every story, and I suspect you and the insurance company were on different pages with regard to what your policy covered.

[Clocker]

Hello?

This guy is a douche

You know he is bad when Howard Dean thinks so too.

Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean gave an excoriating critique of his own party’s key piece of legislation, Obamacare, saying it was “put together by a bunch of elitists” who “don’t fundamentally understand the American people.”

Speaking to MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski on Wednesday, Dean was shocked that Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said “the stupidity of the American voter” was a “political advantage” in passing Obamacare.

“The problem is not that he said it. The problem is that he thinks it,” Dean said. “The core problem under the damn law is it was put together by a bunch of elitists who don’t fundamentally understand the American people. That’s what the problem is.”

Story here. (http://freebeacon.com/issues/howard-dean-obamacare-created-by-elitists-who-dont-fundamentally-understand-the-american-people/)

[rastajenk]

I'm thinking Howard just lost his spot on mostpost's Christmas card list.

[ArlJim78]

It's amazing to me how accepting the lefties are about lying. We told them all along it was a bunch of lies, now it's been verified directly by someone who would know, and its like they don't care. Their side can get away with any transgression and they're always A-OK with it. When this guy talks about the stupidity of the American voter, he's talking about the base of the democratic party, yet they don't seem to know or care. "Trample on us all you want, we'll still love you" seems to be the response.

I remember GHWB was vilified by the right for breaking his "Read my lips" pledge. On the right we don't like to be lied to and we don't forget.

[Clocker]

In a third video, Gruber says that the tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans cleverly exploits the ignorance of the American voters.

“It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said during a speech at the University of Rhode Island in November 2012.

He was discussing what is known as the Cadillac tax and how it came into being.

Story here. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/12/in-third-video-obamacare-architect-talks-about-basic-exploitation-of-american-voters-video/)

[Clocker]

I'm thinking Howard just lost his spot on mostpost's Christmas card list.

Howard Dean's problem is that he is a moonbat, but he is too honest about it to succeed long term in Democratic politics.

[Clocker]

This guy Gruber is more fun than Joe Biden's speeches. Now he says that opposition to ObamaCare, including the pending SCOTUS case about subsidies, is just a GOP plot to confuse the American people.

Apparently he thinks that confusing the American people about ObamaCare is as low as you can go. :rolleyes:

Gruber told Boston-area public broadcaster WGBH late Tuesday that the upcoming Supreme Court case which challenges whether Obamacare allows subsidies in federally-run exchanges is, in fact, a Republican attempt to confuse the American people.

“I think this comes to the master strategy of the Republican Party, which is to confuse people enough about the law so that they don’t understand the subsidies they’re getting are because of the law,” Gruber said.

Story here. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/11/gruber-now-accusing-gop-of-trying-to-confuse-people-about-obamacare/)

[johnhannibalsmith]

... When this guy talks about the stupidity of the American voter, he's talking about the base of the democratic party, yet they don't seem to know or care. ...

This is the part that needs repeating over and over. This is really how dumb the people he is talking about are.

He isn't talking about conservatives. He isn't talking about Republicans. He's talking about his people. He's talking about mostpost, NJStinks, Ben Affleck, and whoever else has been the roughly half of the population that didn't declare it a pile of steamy lies from the outset.

And those are the same people that will defend him up and down.

Yes, it's true. He's absolutely, one-thousand and four percent correct.

[davew]

It is sad that this bill/law was not about health insurance reform but rather health insurance welfare.

[NJ Stinks]

It's amazing to me how accepting the lefties are about lying. We told them all along it was a bunch of lies, now it's been verified directly by someone who would know, and its like they don't care. Their side can get away with any transgression and they're always A-OK with it. When this guy talks about the stupidity of the American voter, he's talking about the base of the democratic party, yet they don't seem to know or care. "Trample on us all you want, we'll still love you" seems to be the response.

I remember GHWB was vilified by the right for breaking his "Read my lips" pledge. On the right we don't like to be lied to and we don't forget.

The stupidity I'm most concerned about is insurance companies being allowed to drop people who get sick. Or the stupidity involved in allowing insurance companies to raise insurance premiums and/or decline coverage to people who are sick. I also find it incredibly stupid that in 2014 people are still arguing about whether or not healthcare is an American luxury or a basic American right.

So yea, I'll accept a few "lies" for what I perceive to be the greater good.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Ridiculous. Why even live in a constitutional republic if you want someone to decide what is for "the greater good" and lie to get it? This place is doomed.

[DJofSD]

So yea, I'll accept a few "lies" for what I perceive to be the greater good.
Sure, the ends always justify the means. Not a surprise.

[classhandicapper]

So yea, I'll accept a few "lies" for what I perceive to be the greater good.

That's what the neocons said about invading Iraq.

The problem is that one person's view of the greater good (or at least how to get there) is often way different from another's. So it's better to tell the truth and let the chips fall.

[NJ Stinks]

Ridiculous. Why even live in a constitutional republic if you want someone to decide what is for "the greater good" and lie to get it? This place is doomed.

Surely you jest.

[JustRalph]

somebody will file a friend of the court brief that includes this guys comments, right? If this gets in front of the Supreme Court, how do they react?

[NJ Stinks]

That's what the neocons said about invading Iraq.

The problem is that one person's view of the greater good (or at least how to get there) is often way different from another's. So it's better to tell the truth and let the chips fall.


Let's review. A few people indignantly proclaimed that Dems had one standard for lying Repubs and another standard for lying Dems. I simply pointed out that Dems trying to get sick Americans healthcare is a far greater goal than GOP'ers lying so we get can invade Iraq.

Of course, I would prefer no fibs being told by anybody. (shrug)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Surely you jest.

Whatever that means.

[Clocker]

somebody will file a friend of the court brief that includes this guys comments, right? If this gets in front of the Supreme Court, how do they react?

I don't know if any reference to it is admissible at this point, since the Court is reviewing the decisions in other cases that have already been ruled on in lower courts.

In any case, you can be sure that the justices are aware of all this. And I would assume that the knowledge is not going to change anyone's mind.

[Clocker]

The stupidity I'm most concerned about is insurance companies being allowed to drop people who get sick.

This is a straw man. Insurance companies generally did not allow people with preexisting conditions to be insured as part of the general risk pool, because that would have increased the premiums of all of the healthy people. (Sound familiar?) Pre-ObamaCare, there were high risk pools for people with preexisting conditions, based on the fact that high benefits were not a risk, they were a certainty. These pools received government subsidies to keep premiums lower than they would otherwise be.

The issue was not and is not whether or not people with preexisting conditions could get health care, it was who was going to pay for it. The issue in the mind of liberals was "fairness". It just isn't "fair" to make people who are already sick to pay more for insurance. Which is just as rational as saying that drunk drivers shouldn't pay more for auto insurance. Or that Geico and the rest should cover preexisting damage. Everybody knows that, right?

Under high risk pools, the government pays for the higher risk. Under ObamaCare, the lowest risk people pay for it in the form of higher premiums. The unjustified higher premiums are in fact a tax, but not called that lest the stupid American voters figure out that they just got a tax increase.

[Clocker]

I also find it incredibly stupid that in 2014 people are still arguing about whether or not healthcare is an American luxury or a basic American right.

So yea, I'll accept a few "lies" for what I perceive to be the greater good.

The argument is not about health care, it is about who is going to pay for it. If the people of this country, in an open and honest process, decide to improve health care for the poor, they should also participate in the process regarding the funding.

The ObamaCare process allowed a relatively few Democratic politicians to decide what benefits would be provided to who, and that it would be paid for by artificially high premiums on a relatively small portion of the populace and by taxes on individuals and businesses who could least afford to pay them. But the word "tax" was never mentioned in that process.

That is more than a few lies. ObamaCare is the big lie of the century.

[dartman51]

Let's review. A few people indignantly proclaimed that Dems had one standard for lying Repubs and another standard for lying Dems. I simply pointed out that Dems trying to get sick Americans healthcare is a far greater goal than GOP'ers lying so we get can invade Iraq.

Of course, I would prefer no fibs being told by anybody. (shrug)

That may be how you feel, but, that's NOT reality. The reality is, when this all started, there were roughly 30 million people without health insurance, according to the Obama administration. When AHC is fully implemented, there will be roughly 30 million people without health insurance, according to the CBO. So, what was really gained. Trying to get sick people insurance, may be a noble cause, but that is NOT what AHC was, or is, about. It's just sad that so many people were duped. Mr. Gruber was spot on, in his assessment.

[Clocker]

Mr. Gruber was spot on, in his assessment.

And by blabbing about it, Gruber shows that he is not much smarter than those he feels superior to. Gruber got a consulting fee of $400K from ObamaCare. Who is going to hire him now to do such work?


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc12481420141112080800.jpg

[classhandicapper]

Let's review. A few people indignantly proclaimed that Dems had one standard for lying Repubs and another standard for lying Dems. I simply pointed out that Dems trying to get sick Americans healthcare is a far greater goal than GOP'ers lying so we get can invade Iraq.

Of course, I would prefer no fibs being told by anybody. (shrug)

Some people would argue (and did) that invading Iraq was critical to ensure that someone like Saddam, who had previously used WMDs, was removed from power so he could never give support to any terrorists in the region who could attack the US again.

So what's a little white lie like saying "We a sure he still has them now" to accomplish that critical goal?

YOU think that Iraq was not a critical goal (as do I by the way) and some people think Obamacare was not only not a critical goal, but will turn into a long term economic disaster.

The points being, it's never right to lie even if you think the goal is worthy and democrats should pay the price for their lies about Obamacare the way the republicans paid the price for lies about Iraq and "read my lips".

[Clocker]

Some people would argue (and did) that invading Iraq was critical to ensure that someone like Saddam, who had previously used WMDs, was removed from power so he could never give support to any terrorists in the region who could attack the US again.

So what's a little white lie like saying "We a sure he still has them now" to accomplish that critical goal?


I think that Bush acted on inconclusive evidence, that he was personally biased to accept that evidence, and that he greatly over-reacted to that evidence. I don't believe he lied. He screwed up big time, he made some really bad decisions, but he was convinced (or convinced himself) that he was right.

None of which has any bearing on ObamaCare. The people behind it lied. They lied to the democratic Congress and they lied to the American voters. The President lied. Period.

Even if Bush had lied, and if there was proof of it, that does not justify what Obama and Reid and Pelosi and Gruber and the rest did. The scale does not matter. Obama knowingly lied to achieve his personal glory. Period. Bush was a failure. Obama is a failure and a personal disgrace.

[TJDave]

it's never right to lie even if you think the goal is worthy.

Would you lie to your enemy?

Never say never.

[reckless]

The argument is not about health care, it is about who is going to pay for it. If the people of this country, in an open and honest process, decide to improve health care for the poor, they should also participate in the process regarding the funding.

The ObamaCare process allowed a relatively few Democratic politicians to decide what benefits would be provided to who, and that it would be paid for by artificially high premiums on a relatively small portion of the populace and by taxes on individuals and businesses who could least afford to pay them. But the word "tax" was never mentioned in that process.

That is more than a few lies. ObamaCare is the big lie of the century.

As you probably recall, the lying left wing totalitarians even defended Obama Care in front of the U.S. Supreme Court by saying it was not a tax.

[Clocker]

As you probably recall, the lying left wing totalitarians even defended Obama Care in front of the U.S. Supreme Court by saying it was not a tax.

Yep, a win-win for the administration. Obama told the voters it wasn't a tax and they believed him, and the Supreme Court told Obama it was a tax and that made it OK.

[AndyC]

Would you lie to your enemy?

Never say never.

When did the citizens of the US become the president's enemy?

[JustRalph]

When did the citizens of the US become the president's enemy?


You could ask the question the other way around too

Try it with Lois Lerner

[TJDave]

When did the citizens of the US become the president's enemy?

I was challenging this statement, specifically:

"it's never right to lie even if you think the goal is worthy"


My personal opinion is that defending the ACA was not worth lying. I also understand that politicians lie habitually so this didn't particularly surprise or offend me.

[NJ Stinks]

This is a straw man. Insurance companies generally did not allow people with preexisting conditions to be insured as part of the general risk pool, because that would have increased the premiums of all of the healthy people. (Sound familiar?) Pre-ObamaCare, there were high risk pools for people with preexisting conditions, based on the fact that high benefits were not a risk, they were a certainty. These pools received government subsidies to keep premiums lower than they would otherwise be.

The issue was not and is not whether or not people with preexisting conditions could get health care, it was who was going to pay for it. The issue in the mind of liberals was "fairness". It just isn't "fair" to make people who are already sick to pay more for insurance. Which is just as rational as saying that drunk drivers shouldn't pay more for auto insurance. Or that Geico and the rest should cover preexisting damage. Everybody knows that, right?

Under high risk pools, the government pays for the higher risk. Under ObamaCare, the lowest risk people pay for it in the form of higher premiums. The unjustified higher premiums are in fact a tax, but not called that lest the stupid American voters figure out that they just got a tax increase.

You are comparing auto insurance with health insurance. IMO, driving an auto is a choice - a luxury. Being healthy is not a luxury somebody may choose. Being healthy is a necessity. Hence, in most of the civilized world, societies make sure their citizens have access to healthcare regardless of their financial status. Even if there is a tax increase!

I guess some people think it sucks to be civilized. :rolleyes:

[ishman17]

Whenever I see someone post that quote by Pelosi, I question their understanding of how government works and how bills are passed. Nancy Pelosi is a lot smarter than you. That's not an insult; she is also a lot smarter than me. She understands how bills are passed and what happens after they are passed.

Changes are made to bills right up to the final vote, so while you might hope for a certain result; that is not guaranteed until the bill is passed. Even then there are no guarantees. Once the bill is passed and signed into law, it has to be implemented. The appropriate department has to publish rules relating to the new law. Sometimes these rules may change the meaning of parts of the law.

Someone may challenge the law in court. That has certainly been done in the case of the ACA. Courts must decide on how to interpret what Congress has written. Nancy Pelosi was wrong. We don't find out what is in the law after it passes. Sometimes we need to wait years longer to find out.


Lol Nancy pelosi is a smart woman...not sure I've ever heard anyone ever say that....oh wait that because she isnt....and I would greatly question the intelligence level of anyone who thinks she is....

[davew]

When did the citizens of the US become the president's enemy?

when they were born in this country?

[davew]

You are comparing auto insurance with health insurance. IMO, driving an auto is a choice - a luxury. Being healthy is not a luxury somebody may choose. Being healthy is a necessity. Hence, in most of the civilized world, societies make sure their citizens have access to healthcare regardless of their financial status. Even if there is a tax increase!

I guess some people think it sucks to be civilized. :rolleyes:

What if someone chooses to smoke 3 packs of cigs a day, snorts coke a couple times a week, and most of their caloric intake is in the form of alcohol?

What if this person needs a heart or liver transplant, who decides what is routine and what is expected?

[Clocker]

You are comparing auto insurance with health insurance. IMO, driving an auto is a choice - a luxury. Being healthy is not a luxury somebody may choose. Being healthy is a necessity. Hence, in most of the civilized world, societies make sure their citizens have access to healthcare regardless of their financial status. Even if there is a tax increase!

I guess some people think it sucks to be civilized. :rolleyes:

Do you really not understand, or are you are being deliberately obtuse?

You are talking about what care to provide. I am talking about how to pay for it. I don't compare health insurance with auto insurance. I compare funding them.

My opposition to ObamaCare is opposition to the means, not to the end. You keep trying to interject emotion into the argument, and attack the motive for opposition. My motive is the fairness that libs keep whining about. ObamaCare is hugely unfair and burdensome on those least able to afford it, which is why they had to lie about over and over to get it passed.

Attacking opponents of ObamaCare as being uncaring about the poor is as irrational as attacking opponents of any Obama policy as being racist. How about dropping the emotional heartless straw man and addressing the issues. The program is a financial train wreck and a hopeless burden on the health care providers.

[JustRalph]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

Gruber should be arrested along with his accomplices

[DJofSD]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371

Gruber should be arrested along with his accomplices
Ya, well, um, I think that law is to protect the government not the citizens. We're fair game for the the hucksters and the government con artists. BOHICA.

[NJ Stinks]

What if someone chooses to smoke 3 packs of cigs a day, snorts coke a couple times a week, and most of their caloric intake is in the form of alcohol?

What if this person needs a heart or liver transplant, who decides what is routine and what is expected?

Good questions for sure. I have no problem with a medical team of doctors deciding what is covered by basic insurance coverage and what isn't. If somebody needs something over and above basic coverage, they can buy it themselves privately if they can afford to. No system is going to cover every possibility.

[NJ Stinks]

Do you really not understand, or are you are being deliberately obtuse?

You are talking about what care to provide. I am talking about how to pay for it. I don't compare health insurance with auto insurance. I compare funding them.

My opposition to ObamaCare is opposition to the means, not to the end. You keep trying to interject emotion into the argument, and attack the motive for opposition. My motive is the fairness that libs keep whining about. ObamaCare is hugely unfair and burdensome on those least able to afford it, which is why they had to lie about over and over to get it passed.



I started buying health insurance through my federal government job when I was 23. I guess that made me at 23 one of " those least able to afford it". Well, I paid my premiums on time for years when I didn't need the coverage. Now - 41 years later - I need the coverage and it's there for me as promised all those years ago. So you can toss out words like "burdensome" and "unfair" all day long for all I care. The fact is the ACA can work as opposed to what this country had previously that had no shot of working for too many people.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... The fact is the ACA can work as opposed to what this country had previously that had no shot of working for too many people.

One of those things that people say that just drives me nuts is "doing something is better than doing nothing!". This law demonstrates why.

That does not mean that what was in the past was good, it just means that once you convince yourself that something is bad, you'll get duped into anything under the pretense that something has to be better than nothing. All that something tends to be is something equally lousy, but different. And all that something does is waste time. Bad ideas are bad ideas. Substituting one bad idea (or, in my opinion on this matter, worse) for another is not a solution, it's an excuse. And in this case, a justification.

[NJ Stinks]

One of those things that people say that just drives me nuts is "doing something is better than doing nothing!". This law demonstrates why.

That does not mean that what was in the past was good, it just means that once you convince yourself that something is bad, you'll get duped into anything under the pretense that something has to be better than nothing. All that something tends to be is something equally lousy, but different. And all that something does is waste time. Bad ideas are bad ideas. Substituting one bad idea (or, in my opinion on this matter, worse) for another is not a solution, it's an excuse. And in this case, a justification.

1) There are lots of good things about the ACA IMO.

2) The GOP was not going to do anything but continue to waste time. That something was finally attempted to make things better is a good thing IMO.

[Clocker]

I started buying health insurance through my federal government job when I was 23. I guess that made me at 23 one of " those least able to afford it". Well, I paid my premiums on time for years when I didn't need the coverage. Now - 41 years later - I need the coverage and it's there for me as promised all those years ago. So you can toss out words like "burdensome" and "unfair" all day long for all I care.

You still don't understand. Your response is totally irrelevant to the issue. I have to question whether you understand how ObamaCare works at its most basic level.

When you were 23, you were paying premiums based on your actuarial risk of getting benefits. You were paying a statistically fair share of the costs. As a simple example, your premiums were less than those of a 23 year old female, because the actuarial probability of you getting pregnant or having other health problems unique to women were much lower than that of a female.

Today, a 23 year old male pays the same as a 23 year old female, and both pay more than if their premiums were based on the actuarial probability of receiving benefits. Those higher premiums go to fund the benefits paid out to older, less healthy people who don't pay the actual cost of their insurance. In short, a 23 year old male under ObamaCare pays the cost of his own insurance and parts of the costs of females and of older, less healthy people.

Today, a 23 year old male is paying more than his fair share and a middle aged, lower income person is paying less than his fair share of the costs. If you (society) wants to subsidize that older person, what is fair: have the 23 year old pay for it, or have the general tax funds of the government pay for it?

[Robert Goren]

What if someone chooses to smoke 3 packs of cigs a day, snorts coke a couple times a week, and most of their caloric intake is in the form of alcohol?

What if this person needs a heart or liver transplant, who decides what is routine and what is expected?If he is a former vice president, they just give him one. No questions before or after. All the taxpayer's dime to boot. Have never heard one conservative bitching about that.:)

[Robert Goren]

You still don't understand. Your response is totally irrelevant to the issue. I have to question whether you understand how ObamaCare works at its most basic level.

When you were 23, you were paying premiums based on your actuarial risk of getting benefits. You were paying a statistically fair share of the costs. As a simple example, your premiums were less than those of a 23 year old female, because the actuarial probability of you getting pregnant or having other health problems unique to women were much lower than that of a female.

Today, a 23 year old male pays the same as a 23 year old female, and both pay more than if their premiums were based on the actuarial probability of receiving benefits. Those higher premiums go to fund the benefits paid out to older, less healthy people who don't pay the actual cost of their insurance. In short, a 23 year old male under ObamaCare pays the cost of his own insurance and parts of the costs of females and of older, less healthy people.

Today, a 23 year old male is paying more than his fair share and a middle aged, lower income person is paying less than his fair share of the costs. If you (society) wants to subsidize that older person, what is fair: have the 23 year old pay for it, or have the general tax funds of the government pay for it? I have yet to meet a 23 year old male who did not want 23 year old women on the pill. Birth control pills are a cheap investment for 23 year old males. 18 years of child support costs a lot more.

[Clocker]

I have yet to meet a 23 year old male who did not want 23 year old women on the pill. Birth control pills are a cheap investment for 23 year old males. 18 years of child support costs a lot more.

How many 23 year old males do you know that would be happy to help subsidize health insurance for a 55 year old male that included pre-natal care benefits?

Such a person should welcome ObamaCare with open arms.

[Clocker]

Another liberal with the intelligence and integrity to be ashamed of the ObamaCare scam. From Ron Fournier of the National Journal: (http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obamacare-s-foundation-of-lies-20141112)

He called you stupid. He admitted that the White House lied to you. Its officials lied to all of us—Republicans, Democrats, and independents; rich and poor; white and brown; men and women.

Liberals should be the angriest. Not only were they personally deceived, but the administration's dishonest approach to health care reform has helped make Obamacare unpopular while undermining the public's faith in an activist government. A double blow to progressives.


Last year, The Post helped document how Obama and his advisers knowingly misled the public during his 2012 reelection campaign by repeatedly saying that, under Obamacare, people could keep their doctors and keep their health plans. To knowingly mislead is to lie.

"It's hard to know what might have happened if the truth had won the day," writes Post columnist Kathleen Parker. "But we do know that truth squandered is trust lost."

And so even I have to admit, as a supporter, that Obamacare was built and sold on a foundation of lies. No way around it, unless you're willing to accept a political system that colors its lies—the reds, the whites, and the blues.

[davew]

the only american voters that voted for this as far as I know, are the Democratic party congress people in the US House and Senate - not sure if they just know what is best for everyone, or they did not understand it, or they did and had no problem lying to their constituents about what is in it.

[NJ Stinks]

You still don't understand. Your response is totally irrelevant to the issue. I have to question whether you understand how ObamaCare works at its most basic level.

You were paying a statistically fair share of the costs. As a simple example, your premiums were less than those of a 23 year old female, because the actuarial probabilityWhen you were 23, you were paying premiums based on your actuarial risk of getting benefits. of you getting pregnant or having other health problems unique to women were much lower than that of a female.



Wrong. I have and had plan choices since I began working for the federal government at 23 but my sex and age had nothing to do with the cost of my premiums. Simply put, my choice of options look(ed) something like this:

Standard Self - $200 per month
Standard Family - $500 per month

Premiums are based on one thing - either you are just covering yourself or you are covering yourself and your family. So an employee selecting "Standard Family" with a spouse and ten kids pays the same monthly premium as another employee selecting "Standard Family" with a spouse and one kid or another employee selecting "Standard Family" with a spouse and no kids.

[pandy]

It's not lying, it's just politics. Rahm Emanuel's brother, Zeke, is a doctor and Obama's top medical adviser. When Obama was slammed for saying if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and it turned out to be not true, Zeke came to his defense.

According to Zeke, what Obama really meant was that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, but you might have to pay more to do so. But, said Zeke, the part about paying more is the small print, and you don't put the small print in political speeches.

Do you understand that now, you typical American voter?

The small print: typical stupid American voter.


This is exactly what happened to my Mom. The only way she could keep her doctor was to move to a more expensive plan.

[Tom]

Are Americans really that stupid?

WE report, YOU decide.

[DJofSD]

Is that Merkle without glasses?

[Tom]

Did I do that? :lol:

[DJofSD]

I guess I mangled that a bit, it's Urkel.

[Clocker]

Wrong. I have and had plan choices since I began working for the federal government at 23 but my sex and age had nothing to do with the cost of my premiums. Simply put, my choice of options look(ed) something like this:

Standard Self - $200 per month
Standard Family - $500 per month

Premiums are based on one thing - either you are just covering yourself or you are covering yourself and your family. So an employee selecting "Standard Family" with a spouse and ten kids pays the same monthly premium as another employee selecting "Standard Family" with a spouse and one kid or another employee selecting "Standard Family" with a spouse and no kids.

If that's true, it helps explain the government's lack of grasp of reality. That's not the way things work in the real world, before or after ObamaCare. With ObamaCare, there are winners and losers, and the young and healthy are the losers.

[Tom]

$500/month for any size family underlines the problem - the government is stupid with HC and now they are stupid on a huge scale. Instead of raising the standard, they lowered it. Now we have parity in a bad system.
Fact of life - NO government can do anything right, dems, repubs...AL governments are failures and will regress to the bottom.

[NJ Stinks]

If that's true, it helps explain the government's lack of grasp of reality. That's not the way things work in the real world, before or after ObamaCare. With ObamaCare, there are winners and losers, and the young and healthy are the losers.

I tell you how health benefit premiums are determined if one works for the federal government. You come back with the comments above. Even though I already told you my federal health plan has worked exactly as advertised all those years ago when I paid my premiums but rarely used my health insurance coverage.

The government health plans work because there are so many people in the group pools. Grasp that reality and you just might come to understand that the young and the healthy are not and never will be losers under Obamacare if everyone is in the pool.

[Clocker]

Grasp that reality and you just might come to understand that the young and the healthy are not and never will be losers under Obamacare if everyone is in the pool.

Are you volunteering to get in the ObamaCare pool?

You are talking about a fairy tale while the rest of us here are talking about present day reality in which the young and the healthy get the shaft. And ObamaCare doesn't cover that.

[pandy]

I don't understand, NJ. Obviously, if you work for the government, you have a better deal than people in the private sector. Why do you think the young and healthy in the private sector will get a good deal, too? Rates are up over 20% this year. Companies have to pay an excise tax, which will be passed on to employees by either cutting hours, holding off on wage increases, or raising the employee contribution.

[NJ Stinks]

Are you volunteering to get in the ObamaCare pool?

You are talking about a fairy tale while the rest of us here are talking about present day reality in which the young and the healthy get the shaft. And ObamaCare doesn't cover that.

Why is my actual real life experience is "a fairy tale"?

Shortly, I will be entering the best healthcare plan this country has to offer - Medicare.

[NJ Stinks]

I don't understand, NJ. Obviously, if you work for the government, you have a better deal than people in the private sector. Why do you think the young and healthy in the private sector will get a good deal, too? Rates are up over 20% this year. Companies have to pay an excise tax, which will be passed on to employees by either cutting hours, holding off on wage increases, or raising the employee contribution.

I'm going to pay $462 per month for my secondary insurer next year. That secondary insurer is the one I get because I worked for the federal government. My secondary insurer covers my wife and me. Our primary insurer next year is Medicare. My wife and I will each pay $105 a month for Medicare in 2015.

Pandy, is paying almost $700 a month for health insurance a better deal than people get in the private sector? Maybe, maybe not. But that's my "deal".

[Clocker]

Why is my actual real life experience is "a fairy tale"?



Because the discussion is about ObamaCare, where in the real world young and healthy people get the shaft. And where older people lose their plans and their doctors. Your health insurance experience is not relevant to this discussion. Medicare is not relevant to this discussion.

You are blowing smoke screens, refusing to admit that some people are worse off under a government program, and that the government lied about it. Those are facts in a reality that does not affect you, so you deny that reality.

[Clocker]

The final word on the issue from the ultimate source at the Ministry of Truth, Nancy Pelosi: (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4514585/dont-know-didnt-help-write-bill)

"I don't know who he is. He didn't help write our bill"

Oops, maybe not the final word. In 2009, Pelosi praised him by name for his work. Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/13/nancy-pelosi-says-she-doesnt-know-who-jonathan-gruber-is-she-touted-his-work-in-2009/)

[Tom]

Got a third video of the liar in action now.
Congressional investigations on tap.
ACA could be in serious trouble sooner than later........thanks to this punk ass liar.:lol:

[Clocker]

ACA could be in serious trouble sooner than later........thanks to this punk ass liar.:lol:

Are you one of those fanatics that doesn't think that the end justifies the means, especially when people are too stupid to know that the end is good for them? :eek:

[Clocker]

Jake Tapper of CNN, one of the few real journalists on cable news, says that there is another video of Gruber, not yet shown on the air. Not as inflammatory or insulting as the others, in this one Gruber says that despite administration promises, he and others had no idea if anything in the bill could actually cut costs. He also says that he and other experts don't know how to cut costs.

"Barack Obama's not a stupid man, okay?" Gruber said in his remarks at the College of the Holy Cross on March 11, 2010. "He knew when he was running for president that quite frankly the American public doesn't actually care that much about the uninsured....What the American public cares about is costs. And that's why even though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control. How it's going to lower the cost of health care, that's all they talk about. Why? Because that's what people want to hear about because a majority of American care about health care costs."

Gruber said the measures in the bill that attempt to lower costs constitute a "spaghetti approach" -- throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. And while preferable to the status quo, Gruber said he could offer no guarantee that any of the measures would work.

"The only way we're going to stop our country from being a latter day Roman Empire and falling under its own weight is getting control of the growth rate of health care costs," he said. "The problem is we don't know how."

Tapper's story, which does not have the Gruber video, is HERE. (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/13/politics/tapper-gruber/index.html)

The full hour and a half video is HERE. (http://www.c-span.org/video/?292478-1/health-care-reform)

[Tom]

Are you one of those fanatics that doesn't think that the end justifies the means, especially when people are too stupid to know that the end is good for them? :eek:



Yeah.
What?
Who, me?

[ArlJim78]

saw on twitter,
Borked is what democrats do to conservatives.
Grubered is what democrats do to themselves.

lack of transparency and the stupidity of their base voter, this is most important to administration central planners. I'm glad it's now out in the open.

[ArlJim78]

heh, turns out the guy who uncovered these videos, Rich Weinstein is a pissed off citizen journalist who lost is insurance due to Obamacare and had to pay double to get the same coverage. So he started digging to expose the lies.

Supposedly another video is going to drop tonight.

Meet the man who discovered the Gruber videos (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/11/meet_the_guy_who_found_all_those_jonathan_gruber_o bamacare_clips.html)

[pandy]

I'm going to pay $462 per month for my secondary insurer next year. That secondary insurer is the one I get because I worked for the federal government. My secondary insurer covers my wife and me. Our primary insurer next year is Medicare. My wife and I will each pay $105 a month for Medicare in 2015.

Pandy, is paying almost $700 a month for health insurance a better deal than people get in the private sector? Maybe, maybe not. But that's my "deal".


I still think that $700 is high. And I don't begrudge anyone who gets a good deal because they work, or worked, for the gov't. But, I do think that this is will prove to be a rotten deal for the private sector, which the exception of those who get subsidies. This is going to be a lot like property taxes -- it's going to keep going up and up and up.

[JustRalph]

Cross posted....from the "better than we thought" thread

From DU. They will defend the beast no matter what

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025811756#post36

More stupid americans

[Clocker]

Cross posted....from the "better than we thought" thread

From DU. They will defend the beast no matter what

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025811756#post36

More stupid americans

It's a good thing that is being done on the internet. If that mob could get to her in person, they would stone her for heresy.

[DJofSD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EPnxG0IUKTo

[Clocker]

Helping the White House lie to the American voters certainly pays well these days.

The federal government has paid Jonathan Gruber at least $4 million since the year 2000, for his work as an expert witness, a legal consultant and for his consultation on Obamacare.

That comes on top of at least $1.6 million the MIT economist has been paid by several states to consult on their health care bills.

Story here. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/14/gruber-has-made-at-least-5-9-million-for-government-work/)

[ArlJim78]

Giant Ass of the Week - Gruber or Kardashian?

sorry Kim I have to say Gruber.

[JustRalph]

Giant Ass of the Week - Gruber or Kardashian?

sorry Kim I have to say Gruber.

Some guy on Twitter posted a pic of Kim with a giant turd under her ass. The magazine that paid her for the nude shots threatened to sue him. His account disappeared, as so the rumor goes. I didn't see the pic. He might be the bigger ass.

Personally I thought adding a turd to the pic was redundant

[pandy]

Fox and Friends weekend reported that NBC and ABC did not mention this story ONCE on any of their shows, including the morning news shows. CBS gave it a a minute and a half on the morning show.

And there's no medias bias?

[DJofSD]

Fox and Friends weekend reported that NBC and ABC did not mention this story ONCE on any of their shows, including the morning news shows. CBS gave it a a minute and a half on the morning show.

And there's no medias bias?
I read somewhere the "stupid" line had been edited out -- it might have been for the CBS airing.

[Tom]

cBS, ABC and NBC are all divisions of the White house.
They all work for Obama - their job is to hide the truth.

Except, last week, the liberal agenda was soundly rejected.
Somehow, those idiots out there still figured out the truth.

Wonder if the Alphabet Propaganda Networks (APNs) will mention the IMPEACHMENT proceedings next spring?

Remember, America has spoken, but we still have more to say......

[FantasticDan]

Except, last week, the liberal agenda was soundly rejected.
:D So, just going back a few yrs, it was accepted in 2008, rejected in 2010, accepted again in 2012, and now we're back to rejected.

See a pattern? :rolleyes:

[fast4522]

Cross posted....from the "better than we thought" thread

From DU. They will defend the beast no matter what

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025811756#post36

More stupid americans

Well they have in a way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2835048/He-s-two-floppy-shoes-short-complete-clown-outfit-Republican-congressman-says-GOP-shouldn-t-impeach-Barack-Obama-met-Joe-Biden.html

[Clocker]

:D So, just going back a few yrs, it was accepted in 2008, rejected in 2010, accepted again in 2012, and now we're back to rejected.

See a pattern? :rolleyes:

Yeah, we have a two party system, the stupid party and the evil party. They both suck, but the evil party sucks more right now. So the stupid party won this year.

[Clocker]

Fox and Friends weekend reported that NBC and ABC did not mention this story ONCE on any of their shows, including the morning news shows. CBS gave it a a minute and a half on the morning show.

And there's no medias bias?

The networks saw the president lying to the voters as business as usual. No news there.

[Clocker]

Hitler finds out that Field Marshall Gruber spilled the beans on the secret plans. Video here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKhkQqA53v0)

[fast4522]

Without question Clocker that was a hilarious video, I will leave the roasting remarks for January.

[Rwahi1]

Oh yeah! We are all waiting for January. :)

[pandy]

Fox and Friends weekend reported that NBC and ABC did not mention this story ONCE on any of their shows, including the morning news shows. CBS gave it a a minute and a half on the morning show.

And there's no medias bias?


They showed the video on the Today Show (NBC) this morning, and finally covered the story.

[davew]

I have to wonder if Obama was in on the deception, or if he was one of the stupid americans fooled.

I now believe Obama is either a sociopath, naive, or stupid (I can't tell which).

[Tom]

I have to wonder if Obama was in on the deception, or if he was one of the stupid americans fooled.

I now believe Obama is either a sociopath, naive, or stupid (I can't tell which).

Good one! :lol:
Obama is not an American! :lol:

but he is mentally ill. No doubt about that at all.
The debate is over.......anchor-boy is bonkers!

[BlueShoe]

I have yet to meet a 23 year old male who did not want 23 year old women on the pill. Birth control pills are a cheap investment for 23 year old males. 18 years of child support costs a lot more.
But a package of condoms is a lot cheaper than either. We went through this debate with the Sandra Fluke incident, hardly worth while to do it again, is there?

[JustRalph]

I've met a ton of women who couldn't remember to take a pill every day :bang:

[TJDave]

I've met a ton of women who couldn't remember to take a pill every day :bang:

That's why abortions should be readily available. If women can't be conscientious enough to take a pill how can we expect their attempts at parenting to be any better?

[JustRalph]

That's why abortions should be readily available. If women can't be conscientious enough to take a pill how can we expect their attempts at parenting to be any better?

I would counter that the morning after pill should be readily available. Not abortion. Two different animals completely.

[TJDave]

I would counter that the morning after pill should be readily available.

Who's gonna remind her to take that one? ;)

[reckless]

That's why abortions should be readily available. If women can't be conscientious enough to take a pill how can we expect their attempts at parenting to be any better?

On moral and religious grounds I am against abortion.

Yet, considering all the irresponsible chickie poos out there these past 25-plus years, maybe there should have been more such procedures performed on these douche bags.

Our country and our culture would be better off today, for sure.

[BlueShoe]

Who's gonna remind her to take that one? ;)
The guy that doesn't want to pay child support for 18 years.

[Tom]

That's why abortions should be readily available. If women can't be conscientious enough to take a pill how can we expect their attempts at parenting to be any better?

Abort those women.
I have no problem with retroactive abortions.
Abort the problem, not the symptoms.

[JustRalph]

http://youtu.be/kDomkBtJC7Q

kDomkBtJC7Q


Wrapped up in short video

[Rwahi1]

Well!...