Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
DonDiego has come across an excellent brief summary of where Obamacare stands now...
From an Exxon-Mobil-Koch Brothers funded "think" tank! Well there's an unbiased source.
Perhaps forkushV would enlighten the LVA Forum with corrections to the referenced article.
As you may recall DonDiego, I didn't bother to come up with "corrections" when you posted a story about Naked-crucifixions-in-front-of-the-Egyptian-presidential-palace.
It's 2015, and one of the basics of modern literacy is that you examine the biases and the track record of your sources. They even teach that in school these days. You posted as fact something from a right-wing think tank kept afloat by the likes of Exxon-Mobil and the Koch Brothers. Oh, and they're a health care organization active in denying climate change too! Can't you just smell the credibility?
Meanwhile, jatki posts from an organization who thinks that it's "journalism" to accuse Obama of being gay. You don't debate shit like that; mostly, you should just point and laugh.
As usual Forky is trying to twist something, here's the beginning of the article that Forkys referring to, and it says absolutely nothing about Obama actually bein gay, the title is meant to equate Obama with gay rights.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2008/03/02/obama_americas_first_gay_president/page/full
"
If William Jefferson Clinton was America's first "black" president, could it be that Barack Obama is positioning himself to be the nation's first "gay" president? His supporters have argued vehemently for months that Barack Obama does not represent the interest of the radical homosexual activists. Chicago "South-side" radio talk show hosts declare with confidence that Senator Obama has said he would oppose the redefining of marriage to include unions that only the imagination could cook up. Obama has blindsided black clergy across America with the con-game that they should not worry about his views on homosexuality."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the picture he posted was from asomething completely different, it wasn't even from this article. How so extremely lame can you get? It's from a Maxine Waters blog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK Forky, here's snopes version of Grudens calling Americans stupid, care to wuss out and walk away from such a ridiculous sourtce as snopes.com? My money says you will ignore this but I'd really love to see you actually try and spin this somehow. You've ignored my youtube link of Gruden, I'm sure you'll ignore this as well. Oh well, if you do, will just prove further how if you can't spin something your way, you'll ignore.
From Snopes.com
Origins: In November 2014, a 52-second long excerpt from a video of a 2013 conference involving Jonathan Gruber, a consultant who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration and Congress during the creation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or "Obamacare"), began to circulate on the internet. Gruber made the remarks captured in that excerpt during the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference at the University of Pennsylvania's Leonard Davis Institute (LDI) of Health Economics in October 2013. Gruber's remarks became controversial when video of the conference was posted online thirteen months after the LDI panel on health economics took place.
Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of economics, was speaking at a panel titled "The Role of Economics in Shaping the ACA and How Economics Can Inform Inevitable Mid-Course Corrections." The footage from which the comments originated ran for nearly an hour and covered issues tangential to Obamacare, such as its classification as a tax, subsidies, and how the bill came into law. Gruber's controversial remarks come at around the 18-minute mark in the video shown below:
https://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/gruber.asp
"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the
stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish ... we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not.
Does that source qualify? HAHA
