MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Nancy Pelosi Says She Doesn't Know Who Jonathan Gruber Is. But in 2009, She Cited His Work By Name.

C-SPANC-SPANWhen Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was asked today for comment about MIT professor Jonathan Gruber's recent remarks that "lack of transparency" and "the stupidity of the American voter" were critical to helping pass Obamacare, she responded briskly: "I don't know who he is. He didn't help write our bill." 

Watch the complete video of her denial at the end of the post, via C-SPAN

Pelosi's remarks are easy enough to check. And she appears to be wrong on both statements.

Did Gruber help write the Affordable Care Act? According to a 2012 article in The New York Times, he did: 

After Mr. Gruber helped the administration put together the basic principles of the proposal, the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.

As for whether Pelosi's claim to not know who he is, well, she knew who he was November of 2009, and said so at a press conference.

The Washington Post dug up a transcript of Pelosi citing Gruber's work by name in support of Obamacare. Here's the relevant section: 

Q: As you know, the Republicans released their health- care bill this week. And I wanted to get your comment on the bill, and specifically on the CBO analysis that it would cost significantly less than the Democratic plan and that it would lower premiums.

PELOSI: Let me just say this. Anything you need to know about the difference between the Democratic bill and the Republican bill is that the Republicans do not end the health insurance companies' discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. They let that stand. That's scandalous, the fact that it exists. I don't understand why they have not heard the American people, who have said preexisting conditions should not be a source of discrimination.

And secondly, the Republican plan ensures about 3 million more people than now, and ours does 36 million people. So that's a very big difference in that.

We're not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we'll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don't know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT's analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange.  [emphasis added]

Those remarks are also on video. Watch below.

In addition, Pelosi's office touted Gruber's analysis of the law's premiums on the House Speaker's website. For that matter, so did the White House. There's just no question that Gruber was closely involved with the creation of the law, and widely cited as an authority on how it would work. 

In attempting to deny any connection between herself and Gruber, or between Gruber and the law, in order to shrug off Gruber's claim that "lack of transparency" was key to passing Obamacare, Pelosi ended up inadvertently proving Gruber's essential point: In making the case for Obamacare, supporters of the law have not been transparent with the public.

(Videos after the jump.)

Here's the video from today:

And here's the video from 2009:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SugarFree||

    Nancy Pelosi is a liar?!? Quick, my smelling salts!

  • Almanian!||

    *waves 'smelling salts' under SF's nose made from essense of Pelosi's armpit sweat*

  • ||

    The undead don't sweat.

  • ||

    She does form salt crystals, though, in more of a geologic process.

  • VicRattlehead||

    fucking killed me with that, now i have images of brave explorers spelunking in the pelosi cavern for the rare smelling salts... hope you all vomit from me sharing my thoughts

  • SugarFree||

    I smell oranges and cigarettes.

  • Root Boy||

    Are you not entertained!!?

  • Almanian!||

    So it's like a "Godfather" death scene!

  • SugarFree||

    "You're spilling it."

  • Riven||

    I knew it was you Pelosi; you broke my heart

  • Metal70s||

    And your wallet.

  • Clown Hunter||

    Lying sack of Botox lies.

    Film, well, never. Because TEATHUGLICANS! Or something.

  • skunkman||

    She is one of the biggest liars in Congress and has been for some time.

  • LDRider||

    Are those covered under Obamacar?

  • Ahem'||

    SugarFree|11.13.14 @ 1:41PM|#

    "Nancy Pelosi is a liar?!? Quick, my smelling salts!"

    Nancy Pelosi is a cunt?!? Quick, my nose pin!

    FTFY

  • Mark22||

    Pelosi used to be a liar. These days, she is just a senile fool; she really doesn't remember.

  • ||

    Circle of lies continues.

    Just who are these people?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Retconning people out of history is a common passtime among communist politicians.

  • Joe Biden's liver||

    "Nancy, why don't we go for a stroll by the river for a photo op?"

  • Paul.||

    Jonathan Gruber is now an UnWord.

  • UnCivilServant||

    "Johnathan Gruber is now an unperson, he has never existed."

    -The Central Party.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Let the name of Johnathan Gruber be stricken from every book and tablet, stricken from all pylons and obelisks, stricken from every monument of DC. Let the name of Johnathan Gruber be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of men for all time.

    -Sethi

  • Sevo||

    Only if we can remove what he's done at the same time.
    If not, allow him to remain in public ridicule for all time.

  • Cyto||

    In attempting to deny any connection between herself and Gruber, or between Gruber and the law, after Gruber claimed that "lack of transparency" was key, Pelosi ended up proving Gruber's essential point, which is in making the case for Obamacare, supporters of the law have not been transparent with the public.

    Well, I think she pretty much made that case back when she said "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy."

  • JWatts||

    "Well, I think she pretty much made that case back when she said "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.""

    She's just doing a public service by refreshing everyone's memory of what a CF this whole law has been.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    If she has to lie, couldn't she spend an extra 30 seconds thinking about it so as to come up with something slightly believable?

  • Brian D||

    Well, all the Democrats believe her...

  • JWatts||

    "Well, all the Democrats believe her..."

    It was just a Speak-O. Only Teathuglicans would harp on this! /derp

    I'm curious, how much do you think the TV News sources will even comment about this. I'm going with one mention, for 90 seconds, and they play it off as a regrettable speak-o on her part.

  • Poppa Kilo||

    Botox is a helluva drug...

  • ||

    Botulism is a helluva disease...

  • setTHEline||

    Yeah, pretty bad. Not that it matters to her constituents or the media. Her body language and mannerisms all say "lying". Of course it's hard to tell with Pelosi given that she's almost always lying.

    "I don't know who Jonathan Gruber is, and besides he took most of his comments back". - Obvious contradiction. It's also nice to know we can "unsay" things and erase the implications of what we said.

  • heartburn||

    I think it's similar to the "right to be forgotten."

  • Mark22||

    "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

  • ||

    What's great about Pelosi is how blatant she'll be. She either lied through her teeth about something that could be easily checked (and was, here), or has no fucking clue about something she helped strongarm through.

  • John||

    The other great thing about this is watching a jock strap sniffing power worshiper like Gruber get thrown under the bus. In a matter of a few days Gruber went from having access and being part of the group to being a pariah that no one wants to admit to knowing. Gruber has to be shocked. I bet he really thought these people liked him and that he was really an important person.

  • ||

    Yeah but he fucked up and said out loud what the politicians actually think about the voters and their own bases. That is a cardinal sin.

  • John||

    He totally fucked up. But I would bet anything that he both doesn't think he fucked up and actually thinks creatures like Pelosi are going to stand by and defend hm rather than toss him over the side.

  • Root Boy||

    He already got his $400K fee, still has tenure at MIT. He's fine. He'll still be doing backroom deals with Dems on this and other shit. It's in public where he will be shunned.

    Look at all the wagon circling the media is doing for him.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    What more backroom deals?

    Gruber was window dressing. No more. No less. He doesn't have a constituency. He doesn't have anything more to bring to the table. Before, he could give their plan a veneer of intellectual gravitas. Now, anything associated with his brand is tainted.

    They have no more real use for him. And policy shills are a dime a dozen.

  • JWatts||

    "They have no more real use for him. And policy shills are a dime a dozen."

    True. So he'll have to console himself with the huge amount of cash he made and his tenured Professorship at MIT.

  • John||

    For someone like Gruber, that is no consolation JWatts. Guys like him don't do it for the money they do everything to have and be near power. Without that, life is pretty meaningless.

  • Root Boy||

    He can always get a spot at Center for American Progress - sweet gig, all the trappings of the capital city and adoration of the fluffers at WP, NYT, TNR, HHS.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Probably not. Again, Gruber's tainted. If Gruber were just an obvious lying shill, CAP would snap him up in a heartbeat. But, he's not. He's an admitted lying shill.

  • PapayaSF||

    Can we get Gruber in front of a congressional committee, under oath? Can we claw back the $400K on the basis that it was fraudulently obtained?

  • SimonJester||

    ^^

    This. Brilliant. Hang him from his ancles and hit him until money falls out.

  • BigT||

    Gruber: another term for a used condom, scumbag; a disposable commodity.

  • sasob||

    As in the old joke: The redneck rolled off the used gruber, tied it in a knot, and threw it out the car window where it landed in a mud puddle. Then he said, "well if he can get out of that, we'll name him Houdini."

  • Mark22||

    Oh, that's an excellent metaphor.

    Congressman: "We need an economics professor as a legislative condom, so they can't tie the DNA evidence to us when we rape our constituents."

    We should start using this in news stories: "John Smith, an economics expert, was used as a legislative condom for the president's new climate change initiative."

  • Paul.||

    She either lied through her teeth about something that could be easily checked (and was, here), or has no fucking clue about something she helped strongarm through.

    Yes.

  • BigT||

    No, both lied and was not fully aware. Evil AND incompetent.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Ah, the appeal to authority. An underappreciated fallacy.

  • John||

    The right wing blogssphere is missing the point of what Gruber said. They think he was calling Republicans stupid or Americans in general stupid. He may have meant to do that but that is not what he actually did.

    It wasn't the Republicans who were too stupid to understand what was in the bill or what it would do. They figured it right out and did everything they could to stop it. Gruber is calling Democratic voters and really the Democrats in Congress who voted for this thing without reading it stupid. He is talking about all of the middle and upper class Democratic voters who cried with joy the day this thing was passed because they thought it was going to help everyone get insurance and they were not going to have to pay for it. Obama said I could keep my plan if I liked it, didn't he?

    Gruber whether he meant to or not did not insult Republicans because they never supported the bill. He insulted the gentry left who did support the bill not understanding how it was going to fuck them.

  • Clown Hunter||

    Exactly.

    What he's really saying is that if we had told the truth about this bill, people are smart enough to see that it is a flyblown sack of shit and it wouldn't have passed.

    By obfuscating and lying, we kept just enough of the partisans on-side to squeak it through.

  • Sevo||

    "It wasn't the Republicans who were too stupid to understand what was in the bill or what it would do. They figured it right out and did everything they could to stop it. Gruber is calling Democratic voters and really the Democrats in Congress who voted for this thing without reading it stupid. He is talking about all of the middle and upper class Democratic voters who cried with joy the day this thing was passed because they thought it was going to help everyone get insurance and they were not going to have to pay for it. Obama said I could keep my plan if I liked it, didn't he?"'

    Exactly! Neither libertarians nor most R's fell for the lies; it was obvious none of that steaming pile of crap was true. Not increase the debt? Ha! Make medical care cheaper? Up your's pal! 'Cadillac' plans won't cost more? Pffft!
    Nope, it was the ol' D-for-dumb Dems who fell for it. The Tonys of the world. Our ol' buddy turd.
    I notice commie kid blew it off; falling for lies is what you do if you support commies.

  • John||

    Every asshole in the media who shilled for this bill should have to answer the following question:

    Where you in on the lie or were you one of the ones who was so stupid they believed the lie?

  • tarran||

    When I rise to power, right after my henchman start shackling the DEA people into the boats for their final agonizing journey, I shall carry out your desire.

  • Sevo||

    'Were you in on the lie or were you one of the ones who was so stupid they believed the lie?'

    Fool AND knave. And despicable.
    BTW, I see our lefty dolts have been somewhat less than obvious...

  • PapayaSF||

    The lie that always stuck in my craw was the "You can keep your plan," which always conflicted with "We're going to mandate that plans cover more things, not have upper limits, etc." It was never possible to square that circle.

  • JWatts||

    "Nope, it was the ol' D-for-dumb Dems who fell for it. The Tonys of the world. "

    It was a talking point for The Tonys of the world. They don't care about the truth. And they approve of the methods.

    No, this was aimed at the undecided middle. This was the Left saying, look we have a Professor from MIT. He's an expert. Those idiots on the Right are just unscientific reactionaries.

  • ||

    Top. Man.

  • Mark22||

    The science is settled. It's subsidies all the way down.

  • JPyrate||

    Well... Making a person who needs a limb brace, or prosthetic's pay more, in order for them to get a subsidy for cheaper health insurance, should have been a good enough reason for any moral person to not support Obamacare.
    Yet here we are. Pelosi is a fucking Turd.Burglar.

  • Kure'i||

    A lot of talking heads seem to miss this quite central point, which just means that whether they supported it or didn't, a vast number of people on both sides are pretty retarded.

  • The_Millenial||

    In the famous words of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: "I don't recall"

  • jmomls||

    *In the famous words of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: "I don't recall"*

    Yes, yes "because Bush", or something.

    Whatever, troll.

  • BigT||

    You mean Shrillary 'I don't recall' Clintun!

  • Brochettaward||

    Let's spot the number of lies here:
    1. Nancy Pelosi claims that Obaamcare would insure 36m compared to 'just' 3m.
    2. I have been told that the Republicasn never offered an alternative to Obamacare, yet there Pelosi and the media are in 2009...acknowledging a Republican alternative did exist, and refusing to even consider it.
    3. Pelosi calls insurance companies charging more to people already sick 'discrimination.' I mean, it's as if she doesn't know that insurance companies don't exist to pay your treatment. They are intermediaries that mitigate risk.
    4. Pelosi denies knowing who Gruber is.
    5. Peloisi denies Gruber helped write the bill.

    I mean, in four paragraphs of Pelosi's words, we have at least 5 major lies.

  • Root Boy||

    Gollum is going to gollum.

    San Francisco does not give a shit.

  • Kure'i||

    Yep. And her constituents will keep reelecting this condescending, obviously batshit, clueless cunt until she's either in the ground or appoints some familial successor to her lifetime position.

  • PapayaSF||

    Well, not all of her constituents....

  • Sevo||

    P, do we qualify as "constituents"?

    "Noun
    [...]
    4. a person who authorizes another to act in his or her behalf, as a voter in a district represented by an elected official."
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constituent

    I didn't authorize that hag to do anything other than fall in a sewer and drown.

  • PapayaSF||

    I think we are, in the more general sense of the word. When a Congresscritter says "My constituents," they mean everyone in their district, not just their supporters.

  • Sevo||

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

  • Walter Peck||

    Actually, they mean "the stupid people who don't know what's good for them and need me to make decisions for their unsophisticated plebeian minds."

  • DK||

    Wow, I thought I had it bad with having Waxman as my Congrasshole.

  • Root Boy||

    Didn't Sandra Fluke run for that seat -- I guess she lost the primary?

    San Francisco is getting interesting lately - looking forward to seeing more blue on blue (Google Bus protests) as the crabs try to eat each other, though I hope Sevo and SF survive.

  • DK||

    Didn't Sandra Fluke run for that seat ...

    No, she ran for the California State Senate and lost.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    Wow. That's embarrassing... if a chick like Fluke can't win an election in California, where COULD she win one?

  • Kure'i||

    No, just enough constituents to ensure she gets reelected into "Elder Party Stateswoman."

    I feel for ya, though. I lived in deep blue territory (terrortory?) for most of my life, with a longer chain of One Party rule than has been had by most Latin American countries.

  • sasob||

    California isn't a Latin American country?

  • Kure'i||

    No; it's too first world.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    For now.

  • ||

    Wait, is this some sort of trick, like the Louisiana literacy test for voters?

  • Hugh Akston||

    You guys still don't get it do you? This whole "ObamaCare" thing was just a ruse to distract us while he pulls off the greatest heist in history. Johnathan Gruber is exactly like his brothers. Somebody find out what rock McClane is hiding under, and kick it over.

  • Mike M.||

    the greatest heist in history

    Quantitative easing?

  • Catatafish||

    He's going to steal all the gold from the vaults of the insurance companies?

  • JWatts||

    "He's going to steal all the gold from the vaults of the insurance companies?"

    No. He's going to transfer all the gold from Fort Knox, give it to the Health Insurance companies and get sweet, sweet consulting money for life.


    Also this:

    "MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped develop the law, says about half the costs are offset by projected savings in Medicare payments to insurers and hospitals. Another quarter is offset by added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies
    ...
    Those provisions actually make the bill a net positive for the federal budget, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. By the CBO's accounting, Obamacare will produce a surplus. Gruber says the law will "actually lower the deficit by about $100 billion over the next decade and by $1 trillion in the decade after."

    However, many Republicans have expressed skepticism about those findings."

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/healt.....-subsidies

  • Sevo||

    "MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped develop the law, says about half the costs are offset by projected savings in Medicare payments to insurers and hospitals."
    Which I presume he didn't even bother justify at all; just hot air.

    "Another quarter is offset by added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies"
    Which, of course are made up by the amounts paid to the companies by the unicorns they ranch on the company grounds, right?
    I mean, it's not like the consumers of the companies' products will have to pay more!

  • sarcasmic||

    Bitch got Alzheimer's.

  • ||

    Question: I keep reading defenders of Obamacare say large parts of it, like the mandate, came from the Heritage Foundation or GOP. How accurate is this assertion?

  • OldMexican||

    Not very accurate. The Heritage Foundation was saying that such a scheme would require mandates to make it work just like Frankenstein's monster needed lighting to give it life. It was supposed to be a criticism of any such scheme because a mandate like that is evidently bad - or at least, the HF thought it was evident to everybody.

  • ||

    The other thing I notice is they charge the GOP have no plan and obstruct but at the same time claim Obamacare is similar to what they were pushing under Clinton.

    Right there it should be a red flag to anyone with a brain the size of a pea.

  • The_Millenial||

    This is from a liberal perspective, but it does look like there were significant differences: www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2.....chart-form

    There's been a ton written about this though.

  • Harun||

    The Heritage Foundation came out with this idea years ago. It was just a concept idea. Not a plank.

    This is like saying

    The Pentagon has a plan for war with Canada = The Pentagon wants war with Canada

  • Almanian!||

    Wait.....so the US DOESN'T want war with Canada?

    Wow - I really need to re-examine some ideas I've had...

  • ||

    It wouldn't be a war...It would be a slaughter.

    What with their Attack Moose, and frozen tundra.

  • Charles Easterly||

    A moose once bit my sister....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SII-jhEd-a0

  • ||

    Hey, Tundra is on our side! Well, he is a Minnesodan, so maybe he will betray the US and fight for Canada.

    Does that mean that us residents from the North Star state will be locked up in internment camps during the conflict?

    If the camps are somewhere warm, I may be up for it. Winter is already looking like it is going to suck this year.

  • Mark22||

    What kind of freaks are that polite? It's gotta be they're all up to something. Time for a preemptive strike!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfBbR6L0M

  • UnCivilServant||

    War Plan Red and the Canadian counterpart are fun through experiments. If both ahd been put into practice, the US and Canadian armies would have collided at the border, as they were practically inverses of each other (save for the naval blockade in War Plan Red).

  • Almanian!||

    Who cares?

  • ||

    War with Canada?

  • Almanian!||

    YOU'RE ON!

    *starts sharpening sticks into spears*

  • ||

    *furiously prepares beaver pelts AND sharpens skates.

  • Root Boy||

    First step is to Manchurian Justin Beiber back to Canada and either have him explode or run for PM.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Loser gets Minnesota right?

  • ||

    Loser has to take all the progs.

  • ||

    /scratches back of head.

    Won't leave many people here if we win but what the heck. We'll import.

    You're on!

  • ||

    You are just jealous because we are the northernmost of the continental 48!

    And I might not be adverse to that settlement. The Vikes might be able to compete in the CFL.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Teach those filthy hosers a les...

    Oh, hi, Rufus. *walks away, whistling*

  • ||

    Keep whistling pal.

    /looks down continuing to sharpen skates.

  • ||

    I'm not your pal, friend!

  • DesigNate||

    He's not your friend, guy!

  • Riven||

    I'm not your friend, buddy!

  • The_Millenial||

    This is indeed a horrible day for Canada, and therefore, the rest of the world.

  • ||

    North Korea is reading this part of the thread and saying, "We can soooo take these guys."

  • JPyrate||

    I'm not your buddy guy !

  • BuSab Agent||

    Okay Rufus, let's have at it! OH one other condition, win or lose youse guys have to burn down the white house like last time. For old times sake.

  • PapayaSF||

    The Heritage Foundation plan was a mandate for low-premium catastrophic-only insurance. Once the Democrats in MA and then DC got done with their work, it was no longer low premium catastrophic-only insurance.

    It's sort of like blaming John Ford for The Lone Ranger (2013), because he made Westerns first.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    explanation: Pelosi is senile. she is really getting up there in age (74). Of course, good, honest progs reject this factor, just as they did not care about Reagan's age in 1980 or Dole's age in 1996.

  • sarcasmic||

    Principals trump principles.

  • Pinky||

    I don't know. Pelosi is senile or Pelosi is an evil fuck? What would Occam's razor say?

  • Idle Hands||

    HAHAHA Obama is like a gift from god for republicans via the NYT:

    WASHINGTON — President Obama will ignore angry protests from Republicans and announce as soon as next week a broad overhaul of the nation’s immigration enforcement system that will protect up to five million undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation and provide many of them with work permits, according to administration officials who have direct knowledge of the plan.

    Asserting his authority as president to enforce the nation’s laws with discretion, Mr. Obama intends to order changes that will significantly refocus the activities of the government’s 12,000 immigration agents. One key piece of the order, officials said, will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents and no longer worry about being discovered, separated from their families and sent away.

    That part of Mr. Obama’s plan alone could affect as many as 3.3 million people who have been living in the United States illegally for at least five years, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration research organization in Washington. But the White House is also considering a stricter policy that would limit the benefits to people who have lived in the country for at least 10 years, or about 2.5 million people.
  • Idle Hands||

    Honestly what polls is the president looking at that shows this as a good idea? It's not as if there is this overwhelming majority of people who support this, there isn't even a plurality. At this point I think he knows he's toast and is going out with both his middle-fingers extended.

  • Idle Hands||

  • John||

    The funny thing is that he is actually fucking the Hispanics the worst by doing this. What are they getting out of this? They are not getting any kind of permanent legal status. They are getting a "don't worry Big daddy Obama won't deport you" card. That is fine and all but there is no way of telling the expiration date on that. Everyone says "but no future President would really be a big meany and go back on Obama's action" but they don't know that. He is leaving these people in legal limbo. Worse still he is doing it in a way that is going to engender so much animosity over this issue, he is probably foreclosing any hope of them getting out of that limbo for a very long time.

    The genius of the Progs has always been their ability to take partial gains and build on them. If Obama had any brains he would have given the Republicans in Congress a half measure that was just too tempting to pass up and moved the ball a little further up the road for the next President to pick up. Instead he is doing the absolute dumbest and most counter productive thing he can do.

  • Idle Hands||

    Exactly, what he did marijuana the same way. He is such a spineless worm.

  • John||

    Anyone that goes into the pot business is nuts in my opinion. Pot is still illegal under federal law. No assurance from Obama or anyone else is binding or in anyway prevents the DEA or FBI from busting you for violating federal law. Until the law is changed, it is still illegal and anyone who sells it is potentially subject to federal prosecution.

  • Idle Hands||

    Are the states that reap in taxes revenue from Marijuana subject to federal asset forfeiture laws? That would be a fun supreme court case.

  • UnCivilServant||

    "We have seized the state of Colorado"

  • DesigNate||

    "Except for La Junta. Just because."

  • JWatts||

    "Until the law is changed, it is still illegal and anyone who sells it is potentially subject to federal prosecution."

    John, don't be naïve. Selling marijuana is subject to confiscatory taxation levels. The Feds aren't going to jail them, they are going to tax them into oblivion.

    "How the IRS and Congress cripple the marijuana industry with an obscure, decades-old law

    ...with some pot outfits forking over as much as 90 percent of their revenue in federal taxes, "

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....s-old-law/

    Note the word revenue. Not profits, but gross revenue.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "Note the word revenue. Not profits, but gross revenue."

    "There's a difference?" -Stupid Voters

  • SugarFree||

    Instead he is doing the absolute dumbest and most counter productive thing he can do.

    But he gets to look tough and pro-active and flip-off the Republicans.

    Arrogant I can handle, arrogant the country can survive, but an insecure President is down-right frightening.

  • Root Boy||

    It does have huge implications for the Constitution - can he really use immigration law enforcement discretion to give people green cards?

    As people have said, time for Ted Cruz to plan for flat tax implementation without Congress.

  • SugarFree||

    Well, since the Constitution is pretty much a dead-letter at this point, the real question on this and some many other questions is "Who's going to stop him?"

  • Kure'i||

    He's not giving them green cards, which are given to Permanent Residents. They'll be able to obtain work cards ("employment authorization documents" or EADs, as they are commonly called) if they meet the requirements and pass a background check.

    As someone above wrote, though, they will exist in a sort of legal limbo -- at least if this plan is like DACA. They won't have "lawful status," but they also will not be accruing "unlawful presence." They also will have no direct method of moving to legal status, aside from some complicated methods involving Advance Parole that the vast majority won't ever utilize.

  • Root Boy||

    Does the Work Card give them an SSN?

    I guess this makes all the states who give illegals DLs suckers, right?

  • Kure'i||

    Yes, once they get an EAD the next step is getting a SSN. Which is often as fun and efficient as everything else the government does.

    ME: "My wife changed her name when we got married. She already had a social security number from being here on a work visa. So she just needs a name change on the card."

    SS Official: "Her name is not showing up in the Citizenship and Immigration Services system under that number."

    ME: "Yes, she is in their system under her maiden name until they update it. Here is all the paperwork that your website says you require."

    SS Official: "DHS is not recognizing that name. We will have to send them a letter. If you don't hear back within 28 days, come back and try again."

    30 days later, we receive a notice that the application was declined.

    So we try again. And call USCIS, who referred us to Department of State, who in turn referred us to USCIS.

    After 3 months, she finally got her new SSI card. And that was as a legal immigrant. So you can imagine...

  • Root Boy||

    I feel for you and your wife -- and that story is what burns me up about amnesty. The illegals will get treated better than your wife I bet, not worse as you suspect.

  • JustAnotherAnimal||

    Even worse. With an SS card they'll get a drivers license and then they'll register to vote DEMOCRAT in 2016 and this country will be LOST, LOST, LOST forever.

  • ||

    As someone above wrote, though, they will exist in a sort of legal limbo -- at least if this plan is like DACA. They won't have "lawful status," but they also will not be accruing "unlawful presence." They also will have no direct method of moving to legal status, aside from some complicated methods involving Advance Parole that the vast majority won't ever utilize.

    If you like your gardner, you can keep him?

  • Kure'i||

    Clever -- even if you didn't build that.

  • Harun||

    The worst part of this is the fact that its really not a big deal.

    These illegals have American citizen children. They could go home and apply for a green card and receive them, but they are either lazy, or they are afraid to do that, maybe with some reason.

    We should have already handled these people - pay a fine, start the process, etc., because they have American citizen children, they would almost automatically get a green card anyways.

  • Idle Hands||

    Exactly, like most things this problem would have taken care of itself.

  • Clown Hunter||

    You seem to be saying that the concept of "anchor babies" is valid, and not just a bigoted racist teathuglican lie.

  • Kure'i||

    While it's true that anchor babies can potentially provide a pathway to citizenship, the truth is that the "babies" can't file for their parents until those babies are 21. So that's 21+ years of living underground, then having to qualify for a waiver, getting the waiver approved, going back to their country of origin, going to an interview there, then finally getting approved and reentering the country as a PR.

    The oft-cited "if they have a kid here, they get to stay and a greencard" just isn't true. I've seen lots of parents of small children get deported, with relatives here (and the taxpayer) paying to support the left-behind American kids.

  • Mark22||

    with relatives here (and the taxpayer) paying to support the left-behind American kids

    The parents could, of course, just take their kids with them. Just a thought.

  • Harun||

    Sometimes the kid doesn't even speak Spanish or Chinese or whatever.

    There was this case where a Chinese couple gave their kid up for adoption. A white family raised the kid for many years, but then the mom got the kid back and moved back to China.

    The child couldn't speak any Chinese. It didn't like Chinese food. It wanted "American" food. I felt so sorry for that kid.

    Its not so simple to force kids to leave the country.

  • Kure'i||

    They often do.

  • PapayaSF||

  • Harun||

    The thing is I have met some of these people. My wife was at ESL school and you'd meet some Mexican woman there who's husband is a citizen. Her 3 kids are citizens. They can't even speak Spanish and are in high school.

    At this point, deporting this person is sort of useless.

    If all Obama does is help these people, that's way better than what I thought he would do.

  • JustAnotherAnimal||

    You've clearly never processed an application with USCIS. There is no such thing as "automatic."

  • Kure'i||

    Yeah, I think Harun must've gotten his info from Sean Hannity.

  • Harun||

    Actually, I have and you are correct. Its not automatic at all. I just meant that, theoretically, there isn't much stopping them.

    Sorry for the loose use of the word.

  • Kure'i||

    Ah, I see from your other comments that my first reading of your position was incorrect. Gotcha.

    Yeah, I think that the people who were really against the Dream Act and DACA have to be especially mean spirited to advocate deporting these people. I've had several clients who were brought here as infants or toddlers, who didn't even know they were not citizens until they went to get a Driver's License, or their SS number didn't work when they went to get a job. These are the people that Jeff sessions and his ilk want to deport? People who grew up here, went to high school here, and owetheir loyalty to the only country they've ever known? It is essentially taking an American and dropping him off in a foreign country and saying, "welcome home."

  • GroundTruth||

    What, no rebuttals? This crowd must be wearing down on this, finally.

  • ||

    "Obama is finally waking up to the need to fulfill his promises to progressives and not just cater to the Right."

    The comments seem to be balanced but this being the NYT you get your fair share of derpy prog talk.

    As for me watching this from afar, I don't get how, you know, the Americans just don't enforce the laws already on the books.

    If you cross over illegally you committed a crime. You shouldn't be rewarded with amnesty despite being good for the economy and what not. That's besides the point and goes without saying.

    The integrity of the process matters, no?

    Meh. Maybe it's the Canadian in me.

    /read in Terrence and Phillip voice.

  • wareagle||

    I don't get how, you know, the Americans just don't enforce the laws already on the books.

    because laws are magic. Passing them = instant enforcement. If the problem does not resolve itself, then clearly the prior law(s) was/were bad and new laws are needed. Or something like that.

  • ||

    Sorry, Rufus.

    /read in Terrence and Phillip voice.

    I'm afraid I have to do so with everything you write now.

    What with your floppy head and all...

  • JPyrate||

    SURPRISE !!! SURPRISE !!! SURPRISE !!!!!

  • From the Tundra||

    Apparently there is more Gruber spew coming.

  • Rich||

    It'll keep everyone floundering while awaiting the immigration fight.

  • Sevo||

    From the Tundra|11.13.14 @ 2:03PM|#
    "Apparently there is more Gruber spew coming."

    I believe Mr. Weinstein is gonna have holiday gifts for Mr. Gruber for quite a while!
    Happy Holiday, Jon!

  • PapayaSF||

    The slow drip of releases is a brilliant tactic.

  • ||

    One per day until Channukah?
    Make it unignorable.
    Also, good on the Post for actually publishing that (even with their hand waving at the end).

  • PapayaSF||

    No, give each one 2-3 days on its own, to leave time for reaction. As comedians know, you don't want to step on the laughs.

  • ||

    Weinstein needs protection. ASAP

    Otherwise he might die of a heart attack walking home from a bar one night very soon.

  • SugarFree||

    "If thish even gets out, I'll have toh deny I knowsh you, dear Jonathan," Nancy whispered, the rot at the core of her being foaming out of her mouth in rancid waves.

    "It's fine, Nancy. I don't care about me, you and the bill are all that matters," Jonathan murmured in the grey nightmare of her crotch. He went back to licking the scab that covered her clitoral hood. It tasted like mushrooms and peppermint.

    "Wesh can make thesh CBO play ball, but I'm worried about the publish-ick," she said. She shuddered under the attention of his bullshit-coated tongue, the crispy folds of her withered labia rasping together like insect wings.

    Jonathan screwed a finger into her slack anus and then another. "We make the whole thing completely opaque. No one will be able to figure out what what is even the damn bill." He paused to spit in her change purse. "The idiots in the flyover states won't know what hit them."

    "Ah, Jonathan. Dosh it! Dosh it, now!" she slurred, covering the top of his head in ancient spittle.

    He jerked his fingers from her ass, drew back to make a fist and then hit her in the crotch as hard as he could. She screamed and howled.

    "Again!"

    The wet, dull thuds of Nancy getting what she demanded echoed through the legislative chamber.

  • Poppa Kilo||

    Is this for the children's book?

  • Almanian!||

    the crispy folds of her withered labia rasping together like insect wings

    THIS is why I visit HyR EVERY DAY.

    poetry...

  • Almanian!||

    drew back to make a fist and then hit her in the crotch as hard as he could

    And this would be a "poetry jam", then, I suppose? Yes?

  • OldMexican||

    Where's the Like button? I want to Like this comment so much!

  • gaijin||

    ^Like

  • Catatafish||

    Can you stifle laughter with your own vomit? Pretty sure that's what I'm doing.

  • Root Boy||

    Same here, had the worst up-chuck/laugh reaction ever. I'm swallowing bile and spitting it up at the same time.

    Curse you SF.

  • SugarFree||

    Curse you SF.

    Get in line.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The really sick part is, the people SugarFree writes about are far more vile than even he is.

    Think about that.

  • SugarFree||

    I doubt I even capture 10% of their depravity on the page.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Come on, you didn't capture 10% of your own depravity! Ok, you probably did.

    Those who puked at that short thing have really not experienced the real you. This was good, but not even a reach for you.

    I warn all who tread here to invest heavily in brain bleach. It could get ugly.

  • Andrew S.||

    Well, it's suicide for me now, because that's the only way to get it out of my head. Thanks, SF. At least I'll go out laughing.

  • gaijin||

    He jerked his fingers from her ass, drew back to make a fist and then hit her in the crotch

    Good stuff!

  • DesigNate||

    God damnit SF I just ate lunch.

  • sasob||

    God damnit SF I just ate lunch.

    Yeah, so did Gruber.

  • WTF||

    *WILD APPLAUSE*

  • ||

    Behold, new commenters, the glory that is SugarFree. This is a man. Warrior. Poet. Archivist.

  • JustAnotherAnimal||

    SF, you are a sick m^%$#@r-f^%$#r. Carry on..... =)

  • Erasmus vs. Luther||

    Oh, fuck you. You brilliant bastard, I just chortled so intensely a piece of shredded cabbage flew out of my nose. One day I'll learn to abstain from eating and reading a thread when SugarFree is lurking about.

  • Kure'i||

    Well, at least someone still has something left in her change purse...

  • OldMexican||

    Nancy Pelosi Says She Doesn't Know Who Jonathan Gruber Is. But in 2009, She Cited His Work By Name.


    You think she's the only one disavowing the guy and denying him three times before the rooster crows?

    In yesterday's showing of The Independents, you guys watched as Julie Roginsky denied she knew the guy, several times. "I didn't know who he was until tonight!"

    They're all going to do the same thing. It is fortunate for them that none of the three alphabet-soup networks have touched the story, not even with a 10-foot pole.

  • ||

    That's how pathetically ill-informed and retarded they are if they didn't know the guy. It only points to the fact they go from A) great idea for all to B) magically happening.

    How anyone can digest them anymore is beyond this Canadian to grasp.

  • Sevo||

    "It is fortunate for them that none of the three alphabet-soup networks have touched the story, not even with a 10-foot pole."

    As far as the print and e-version of the SF Chron is concerned, Gruber doesn't exist. The big story is whether Pelosi's pick for some committee is going to get the nod.
    But this is the same 'newspaper' that took weeks after the O-care exchanges started exploding before they printed something on page 10 under the fold.

  • Kure'i||

    Mentioning both Pelosi and using the phrase "under the fold" rekindled past trauma induced while reading Sugar Free's story above. Perhaps a trigger warning might be in order next time?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Now Gruber knows how Jesus felt.

  • some guy||

    Jesus was persistently mendacious and ridden with hubris? I guess...

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    To be fair, I was joking.

  • OneTinSoldier66||

    Now Gruber knows how Judas felt.

  • ||

    Nobody has nailed him up...yet.

  • Mike M.||

    From now on, his nickname to me is "Schickel".

  • some guy||

    I will henceforth refer to him as "Gruber, noted liar."

  • Drake||

    He's more of an occasional liar. Democrats are furious because he seems to go through spells of actually telling the truth.

  • Banjos||

    How about we call all liars "Grubers" from now on?

  • sasob||

    I had thought we were calling them "Clintons" or "Obamas" - much more appropriate.

  • OneTinSoldier66||

    I like Banjos idea better myself. I think Clintons or Obamas are more like obfuscaters, or schemers, or obfuscating schemers.

  • Almanian!||

    You know who else's work people denied knowing about...

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Leibnitz?

  • Catatafish||

    Reinhard Heydrich?

  • ||

    Good one.

  • Sevo||

    "Reinhard Heydrich?"
    + 1 final solution.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The author of *Battle Royale,* whose work the Hunger Games author says she never read?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Never heard of either. What are they? Board Games?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Books and, later, movies about grown-ups setting teenagers to fight each other. Battle Royale is Japanese, Hunger Games in American.

  • BuSab Agent||

    I know, right. When I fist saw Hunger Games that was my first reaction...what a rip-off of Battle Royale, but not all of us can be obscure (at least to Anglos) manga geeks.

  • From the Tundra||

    SugarFree's!

  • ||

    Winnah!

  • radar||

    in the immortal words of Morris "Moe" Wanachuk.....that cunt is no good.

  • Raston Bot||

    You make me sick when you speak, Morris.

  • Adans smith||

    I though John McClain wiped out all the Gruber boys?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "lack of transparency" and "the stupidity of the American voter" were critical to helping pass Obamacare

    The joke's on Nancy. What he meant was, "the stupidity of 535 pompous idiots in the Capitol were critical to passing Obamacare."

    It wasn't a citizen initiative.

  • Clown Hunter||

    In context, the reference to the "American" voter was really about "Democrat" voters.

    Most Repubs and a big chunk of independents were never in favor. The lies were to keep the Dems from defecting.

  • some guy||

    I hate Pelosi as much as the next sane person, but this doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I've been citing people professionally for over a decade and I doubt I could remember all of them from 5+ years ago. The name Gruber was in her head in 2009 because he was a big part of what she was doing then. Since then he has disappeared from Capitol Hill and she forgot she ever knew him. No big deal. There's plenty of other reasons to vilify her, like the fact that she tried to pass that stupid bill (that she has always hated) in the first place.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Before making an absolute statement like "I don't know who he is. He didn't help write our bill," she should have had her staff look the guy up.

    "Uh-oh, boss,"they would have said, "it seems he did some key work on the bill *and* you cited him in the debate on the bill."

    To which she should have replied, "well then, I certainly won't profess ignorance of who he is or say he wasn't involved in the bill, ha ha!"

  • Mark22||

    she should have had her staff look the guy up.

    She did. And her staff said "don't worry about it, you can get away with plausibly denying it".

  • Remnant Psyche||

    "Remember, the voters really are stupid, not to mention ignorant. This is a win-win for us."

  • Clown Hunter||

    I've been citing people professionally for over a decade and I doubt I could remember all of them from 5+ years ago.

    Well, yeah, somebody who did a little incidental work on an ordinary project.

    They guy who put together the basic structure and was involved at every step of the way? Not so much.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yes. And now she's walking it back by saying that she meant she'd never met him. Yeah, that's what everyone means when they say they "don't know" who someone is.

  • morefandave||

    It's reminiscent of Alger Hiss' walk back from his denial that he knew Whittaker Chambers. And we all know how that came out.

  • Erasmus vs. Luther||

    Who the fuck are you people? Having never personally met any of you, I have no idea what any of your thoughts, viewpoints, or philosophical stances on politics are. For all I know, I'm sitting in a padded room, banging my skull against a wall and this website is a figment of my imagination.

    Reveal yourselves, or get out my head!

  • Sevo||

    some guy|11.13.14 @ 2:28PM|#
    "I hate Pelosi as much as the next sane person, but this doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I've been citing people professionally for over a decade and I doubt I could remember all of them from 5+ years ago."

    How about if a person is now a noted liar on the national stage, and specified as a major contributor to one of you major achievements. And you are asked about it by a member of the press?
    Now, you may not remember off-hand, but you would certainly at least qualify a statement in some way.
    Sorry, she gets no pass at all.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    I find it 100% plausible that Pelosi doesn't remember Gruber, and that she may have known who he was at the time. Her operating level of ignorance is so profound that she produces an anti-knowledge field, where facts are actually removed from reality by proximity to her.

    The possibility that she's not (consciously) lying is far more damning, so it's more likely.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Way to turn a useless (for 99% of humanity)super-power into a career.

  • Tony||

    It must be difficult trying to figure out which angle to take on this.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.13.14 @ 6:00PM|#
    "It must be difficult trying to figure out which angle to take on this."

    I'm sure it is for fucking scumbags like you.
    Here it is; try to keep up:
    The guy lied to pass what is a horrible piece of legislation. And scumbags like you bought it and stuck the rest of us with your garbage.
    Now Pelosi is lying about it.
    Is that clear enough? Quite easy for those of us who didn't get suckered.

  • Tony||

    I wasn't suckered. I knew precisely what the law was about. If you were, that's your problem, but he's not even talking about you. It must be strange knowing you're supposed to be angry but not really about what.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.13.14 @ 7:14PM|#
    "I wasn't suckered. I knew precisely what the law was about."

    So you just lied? Good, now we know how much to trust the crap you post here.

  • Cunning Linguist||

    You knew precisely what it was about, didn't care as long as your ideological opponents were unhappy?

    The law is destruction, coercion, and fecklessness. Won't do what it is supposed to, will cost far more than advertised or is affordable, and will leave millions more without healthcare.

    but, you can feel good about something, you're just not sure what.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    I wasn't suckered. I knew precisely what the law was about.

    Tony, 03-14-2011:

    According to the CBO, Obamacare is a net reduction in the deficit.

    Is it weird to parrot the lies these people tell, only to turn around and hear them say, essentially, "Yeah, we gamed the CBO. Who cares? Gotta do what you gotta do"?

    Or do you just really not give a shit?

    I guess it's kinda like the Iraq war: WMDs, no WMDS, if you like blowing up tanks in the desert, who cares?

  • GroundTruth||

    Impressive finding that!

  • Brian||

    You can probably empathize.

    George W. Bush: pure evil, or moronic bungler?

    Personally, I never understand why it can't be both.

  • Tony||

    Moronic bungler suffering from too much certainty and not enough trust in evidence. At this point I see him more as a tragic figure, worthy of a great play.

  • ||

    Sock puppets galore.

    Huh Tony ?

    So Tony, how old were you when you father abandoned you/your family ?

    Oh, and Squirrel...over there.

  • Brian||

    Agreed. And I have similar feelings about Nancy.

    Except the play part. That would sell as bad as her book, and put everyone to sleep.

    There's just not much of a story with a silly senile congresswoman.

  • ||

    That's a nearly perfect description of Obama's presidency.

  • Tony||

    I read somewhere that the American people like to elect a president who fills in the gaps of the previous president. Obama is not "from the gut" like Bush, and in fact his problem may be that he's too analytical and not cowboyesque enough.

  • Dutch||

    Nancy once met the Truth and claimed she didn't know it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    She was probably appalled and repulsed by it, finding absolutely no value in it.

    You know, just like most sane people feel about her.

  • Paul.||

    Now I understand why the Democrats are so desperate for Net Neutrality.

  • reason1984||

    Pelosi on Gruber:

    "I don't know who he is."

    Gruber on Pelosi:

    "Ya see what I mean"

  • Sevo||

    Yep, he nailed the 'stupids' of the country.

  • MJGreen||

    Delicious.

  • ||

    But we have to pass
    the bill so that you can find
    out what is in it.

    I wish it was all
    transparent, but I’d rather
    have this law than not.

    I have never had
    health care relations with that
    man Mister Gruber.

  • Mark22||

    But we have to pass
    the bill so that you can find
    out what is in it.

    Like a turd.

    I wish it was all
    transparent, but I’d rather
    have this law than not.

    Like a turd.

    I have never had
    health care relations with that
    man Mister Gruber.

    Like... oh never mind.

  • Kure'i||

    A big fucking deal
    The passage of this health care
    Yapped dumb Uncle Joe

    I didn't pass that
    someone else made that happen
    added the Muslim

    Gruber Eruption
    What difference does it make
    hissed a Hilly snake

  • Tarmangani||

    I truly don't believe she is lying. If you listen to a great deal of the comments she has made over the past few years, I think she is suffering from some sort of dementia. She will just ramble on and her statements become so disjointed that I think she is forgetting what she had just said.

    That said, leave her in. She fits the party.

  • JustAnotherAnimal||

    Nah, it's much more simple than that: She's a pathological liar.

  • sasob||

    Tarmangani

    Any relation to John Clayton? :-)

  • Len Bias||

    It's not dementia. No way she gets off that easily.

  • PapayaSF||

    Another idea about Gruber, seen in another thread: Since we know he lied to get Obamacare passed, maybe we should be looking at his professional work. I doubt this is the first lie he ever told. I wonder if he's ever done any academic fraud?

  • Sevo||

    "I wonder if he's ever done any academic fraud?"

    Given overweening egotism, there's reason to think he's tried to slide crap through in the past.
    At least any of his published work now needs a notation regarding his dedication to 'truth'.

  • Mark22||

    I suspect his academic work falls into what hard scientists call the "not even wrong" category.

  • ||

    How much input has he had into "climate change " ?

  • Sevo||

    Hey, that field is over-competed for lying assholes!
    He can't make any scratch there.

  • Gary1206||

    I knew the "he didn't help write the bill" wasn't gonna be far behind.

  • morefandave||

    Fish swim, birds fly, bees make honey, and Pelosi lies. It's their nature.

  • Miner49er||

    "You need to pass the bill, in order to know what is in it."

  • Tony||

    You people should attempt to put yourselves in the shoes of liberals for a second. They have to walk on eggshells 24/7 trying to avoid saying or writing something that will be picked up by the rightwing propaganda machine and turned into the latest HUGE SCANDAL and evidence for why the ACA should be set on fire and Obama impeached. Really, there is no equivalence here. Republicans and their media people say stupid untrue near-treasonous horseshit on a constant basis, and it's given the "oh that's just crazy Uncle Larry" treatment.

  • Rebel Scum (formrly Rev-Match)||

    Republicans and their media people

    I assume that your sorry, mendacious, disingenuous ass is not including CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc. You know, those national, most widely read "news" organizations?

  • Tony||

    Those places tend to report things objectively but are often cowed into covering Republican horseshit as if it refers to something real or important.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.13.14 @ 5:54PM|#
    "Those places tend to report things objectively but are often cowed into covering Republican horseshit as if it refers to something real or important."

    You expect us to believe that? I'm guessing you're retarded enough to believe it yourself, but then you've proven to be one of the 'stupid voters' that lefty scum bag talks about.
    You swallowed those lies hook, line and sinker and now we're expected to believe something you post here?
    Go drown in a septic tank.

  • Rebel Scum (formrly Rev-Match)||

    Do you really not see your contradiction there? If they were so "objective", they would cover the D's and R's with equal time and equal criteria (in reference to favorability/spin/etc.) when covering the government. They do not. IE they are *not* "objective".

  • Tony||

    I mean they report things more-or-less factually, unlike, say FOX, which lies on a pretty constant basis, and which has been proven to make its viewers dumber about the issues than before.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.13.14 @ 7:12PM|#
    "I mean they report things more-or-less factually,"

    Lie.

  • sasob||

    The only group of people who lie on a constant basis, who immediately come to mind, is the present administration and your Fellatee-in-Chief.

  • ||

    Tony get real.

    Do you really think that you are so much smater that the rest here that you can post such lies ?

    Many of the MSM have been caught in partisan editing to make your ststement the talk of an idiot.

    Dan Rather vs. Bush's records

    The partisan editing of the Trevon and George Zimmermon 911 call that made him out to be a racist

    And many others that two Martinis keep me from remembering.

  • Sevo||

    I was earlier wondering whether Tony was lying when he posted the lies about O-care he now claims to know were lies,
    Or whether he is lying now in an attempt t look less like the fool he is,
    Or both.
    And now, it dawns on me there is a forth alternative which I submit as the most likely:
    Tony neither knows nor cares whether a post is a lie so long as it supports his goal of power.
    Like Gruber, the only thing that matters is the end; the means be damned.

  • ||

    I just scanned through the comments to see if any Obumble apologists had anything to say. I will give you credit for at least showing up in an article where the egregious, indefensible behavior of proggies is highlighted.

    I can't put myself in the liberals shoes. I have intellectual integrity and honesty. I actually care about other people. Round peg, square hole.

  • Tony||

    You should be able to put yourself in anyone's shoes if you possess the quality known as empathy. I expect more psychological maturity from someone clever enough to coin things like "Obumble."

  • Erasmus vs. Luther||

    Walk in the shoes of liberals? Have empathy? Where do you think this is exactly?

    I'm sure you where just grief stricken for all the SoCons who thought W. would usher in a fiscally disciplined, Christian utopia.

    My God! I really do try not to rip into the socialists who frequently post here. I even criticize others for habitually doing so(Sorry, Sevo. You're right, I'm wrong as far as T-money is considered).

    Are you even capable of arguing in good faith? I doubt it. You're a detestable human being Tony.

  • Tony||

    This is Suthenboy. He talks like a common Breitbart bottom-feeder. He embarrasses you all with his presence. All I'm doing is making fun of him.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.13.14 @ 7:10PM|#
    "This is Suthenboy. He talks like a common Breitbart bottom-feeder. He embarrasses you all with his presence. All I'm doing is making fun of him."

    So he calls you on your bullshit and you're doing us a favor by pointing that out?
    Why, thank you!

  • Tony||

    I don't see how he did that. I see baby-talk and insults.

  • TAJW||

    And if what he said was an insult, exactly what did you do when you called him a "bottom feeder"

    As to you claiming the non-Fox media outlets don't lie...perhaps you missed all exposure for edited videos, fired or censured correspondents for outright lies.

    No...you probably thought those were wrong, because you are a true believer and koolaid drinker.

  • Sevo||

    "As to you claiming the non-Fox media outlets don't lie...perhaps you missed all exposure for edited videos, fired or censured correspondents for outright lies."

    Let's give Tony a little help here:
    "However, the clip of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber using those exact phrases in talking about the passage of the Affordable Care Act has yet to be reported on ABC or NBC’s evening or morning shows. The sum total of Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network coverage was a 2 minute, 50 second segment on Thursday’s CBS This Morning - six days after the tape was first discovered. On the print side the Washington Post offered a front page story on Gruber on Thursday. But the Gruber comment has yet to show up in the pages of The New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times or even the Associated Press."
    http://www.mrc.org/media-reali.....cans-video

    See, Tony, how those horrible rethuglicans are FORCING the media to, uh, well...
    ignore what they hope will go away? Is that what you mean, Tony?

  • Tony||

    I didn't say they never lie. They tend to be objective, while FOX is obvious propaganda pumping out bullshit on a constant basis.

    But as propaganda, anyone who takes it as real news isn't going to realize that, for a major part of their messaging is that mainstream journalism (and academia, entertainment, science, schooling at all levels, and all foreigners) are in a liberal conspiracy.

  • Erasmus vs. Luther||

    No, it's in fact, not Suthenboy. Never met the man. Outside of a few connecting flights, I've never been to the south. I'm from the Midwest and spent a few years in Boston. Just because I used a favorite insult of his doesn't make me him.

    Aside from that, I've been nothing but civil with you in our few exchanges until now. I've simply become fed up with your disingenuous bullshit.

    You claim we should feel empathy for the plight of liberals who must suffer under a systematic right wing media. What the fuck are talking about?!

    Give me a list of all the habitual fuck ups this administration has achieved that you perceive as fake scandals.

    Explain to me why, after all the evidence stacked against you, it's unthinkable that a piece of legislation, no matter the intent, can be a horribly flawed, unproductive to the common good, piece of shit.

    I'm just one of those undereducated, fly over country plebs you hold nothing but disdain for, but you need the votes of said plebs.

    Surely your clever enough to dazzle my mind Tony. Amaze me in your verse.

  • Tony||

    Sorry I wasn't accusing you of being Suthenboy.

    Is it enough for you to simply claim that the law is massively destructive, or do you have specific things in mind? All the data suggests it's made improvements in the American healthcare system.

  • Brian||

    It's hard to empathize with psychopaths.

  • Sevo||

    "It's hard to empathize with psychopaths."

    Particularly ones who are actively picking your pocket and then asking for sympathy.

  • ||

    They are picking your pocket out of the goodness of their hearts, because they need the money to be generous with.

  • barfman2014||

    *barf*

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Science has proven that liberals can't understand other viewpoints. Why do you deny science, Tony?

  • Walter Peck||

    You people should attempt to put yourselves in the shoes of liberals for a second.

    You should try that yourself. Try putting yourself in the shoes of liberals who supported this law based on false pretenses.

  • Sevo||

    "You should try that yourself. Try putting yourself in the shoes of liberals who supported this law based on false pretenses."

    Tony is already wearing that pair of oxfords; he's been a supporter of the thing from day one, including repeating the lies about how it won't increase the debt, how it'll increase coverage, reduce costs, etc, etc.
    He swallowed every lie the guy told and repeated them at the top of his voice; HE is the subjest when the guy talks about "stupid voters".
    That's Tony, top to bottom, and proud of it!

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Really, there is no equivalence here.

    The only lack of equivalence here is that I don't remember the last time I heard a republican go on camera and say, essentially, "Thank God the American people are stupid, so that we can get our legislation through, without having to worry about democracy feedback loops."

    For someone so obsessed with theoretical democracy (to the point of calling anyone who disagrees with the outcome trying to practice some form of tyranny), your response seems rather... tame. Doesn't a well-functioning democracy require a transparent government, to some degree?

    I would think that if you're going to go around accusing libertarians of being tyranical for not being in love with theoretical democracy, then you wouldn't respond to policy experts openly admitting to tricking voters as "fake scandal."

  • Sevo||

    "For someone so obsessed with theoretical democracy (to the point of calling anyone who disagrees with the outcome trying to practice some form of tyranny), your response seems rather... tame."

    You are entirely too kind.
    He's a fucking hypocrite and proud of it.

  • Erasmus vs. Luther||

    Yep. I can't believe it, but I'm encouraging all the insults you hurl his way.

    I've mentioned in a couple past posts that I think you tend to lay it on a little thick. Maybe you've seen them, maybe not. If so, I apologize when it concerns Tony.

  • Erasmus vs. Luther||

    Really, not trying to start shit. You're just so....angry! I understand why, just never saw the point of insulting people when you might convince them to see your argument's merits. But the longer I visit these boards, the more I realize some people are so hopeless you may as well just shit on them if they happen by.

    I guess that was naive of me. So that being said, fuck Tony in the ass with a running chainsaw, sideways.

  • Sevo||

    Erasmus vs. Luther|11.13.14 @ 7:00PM|#
    ..."I think you tend to lay it on a little thick. Maybe you've seen them, maybe not. If so, I apologize when it concerns Tony."

    You're not the only one, and there's certainly truth in that. But I despise being lied to by supposedly intelligent people and get quite pissed about it.
    In this case, it is a real pleasure to wipe Tony's nose in this shit, especially since he's trying every weasel he can to worm out of it.
    Let's be clear: He supported O-care from the get go; he repeated as sworn truth every lie Gruber and Pelosi told, in spite of 'reasonable' people pointing out the impossibility of those conditions, and he did so often enough with the same temper he gets from me.
    He deserves this crow, raw, with the bird-shit, feathers and claws attached

  • Tony||

    But he's the only one saying it. His point is not without merit abstractly (transparency isn't always an unalloyed good thing). What is without merit is the usual conservative hyperventilating.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.13.14 @ 7:09PM|#
    "....What is without merit is the usual conservative hyperventilating."

    Yeah, asswipe, heaven forbid we expect honesty!

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    His point is not without merit abstractly (transparency isn't always an unalloyed good thing).

    But, we need democracy. And democracy requires transparency. So your acceptance of a lack of transparency, is really a form of tyranny.

    Tyranny!

    ... Did it work? Are you ashamed yet?

  • Tony||

    I'm sorry if you've misunderstood my rather complicated views about how government should work. To clarify, I don't believe it should always be totally transparent. The whole point of electing representatives, put crudely, is that they are supposed to be able to do positive things in spite of the people being idiots prone to too much passion.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.13.14 @ 7:19PM|#
    "I'm sorry if you've misunderstood my rather complicated views about how government should work."

    There's no misunderstanding of your hypocrisy at all.
    So long as Team Blue is lying, you're perfectly happy, since it's 'for the good of mankind'.

  • Brian||

    "Complex" and "contradictory" aren't the same thing.

    So, basically, anyone who doesn't respect the will of the people is suggesting tyranny, except when the leaders lie to voters to do good things, despite what the people want or think. Because people can be that stupid. But, if those stupid people don't get their way through democracy, that's tyranny.

    And you reserve for yourself the right to claim which is tyranny and which is not. And, anyone who disagrees with you is dogmatic.

    Ok. I get it: what tony likes is awesome, and what he doesn't is tyranny.

    How complex and nuanced.

  • Tony||

    You are welcome to finally confirm that you are OK with representative democracy, even if it means you don't always get your way, instead of just having all your ideas put in a sacred text and forcing everyone to abide by them.

  • Brian||

    What is this value you're obsessed with, being "OK" with representative democracy?

    Tony: I don't like the results of the recent elections, but, I'm willing to go along with democracy.
    Libertarian: Personally, I disagree with your policy ideas
    Tony: Why the hell don't you respect democracy?!?!
    Libertarian: Would it make you feel better if I said was OK with democracy?
    Tony: Yes!
    Libertarian: OK, I disagree with your policies, but I'm OK with democracy
    Tony: Good!
    Libertarian: Actually, no I'm not. I'm not OK with democracy. I'm not going to stage a rebellion or anything, but, a bunch of fools voting doesn't really count for much to me
    Tony: Heresy! What could you possibly do about it? Do you want to destroy civilization?
    Libertarian: No
    Tony: Then you better disagree, but be OK with democracy
    Libertarian: What exactly does that accomplish?
    Tony: It makes you look less scary!
    Libertarian: How about we compromise: we'll both be "OK" with democracy, but let's both just lie to the voters about our policy preferences, and each others, in order to game the system and try to get our way. Is that better?
    Tony: Yes, that's totally consistent with representative democracy, avoiding the pitfalls of direct democracy. Because, clearly we can't have tyranny. But, clearly, we can't actually let voters make important decisions, or really know what's really going on.
    Libertarian: And this is considered better than disagreeing and being "not OK with democracy"?
    Tony: Yes!

  • GroundTruth||

    Republic =/= Representative democracy

    A congressman voting his conscience in support of what he believes is best for the nation is not the same as a congressman voting for what he believes most of his constituent would vote for.

    This is not a minor nuance, it is a significant distinction.

  • Rebel Scum (formrly Rev-Match)||

    It IS quite "complicated when one does not have silly things like "principles".

  • Cunning Linguist||

    I frankly have tried but fail to comprehend people who think like you do. It isn't for lack of trying, nor is it related to any intellectual deficit. You pretend to great love of people, until they get in your way. When the destruction wrought by your favored policies are raised, you blithely dismiss the impact to real people as necessary destruction.

    you advocate the stealing of choice from people who by all rights should have it.

  • TAJW||

    Like Harry Reid? (Spitting on ground as I say that)

  • ||

    You're views aren't complicated, they are merely inconsistent and hypocritical with a lot of rationalizing around that fact.

  • Jose Chung||

    As a "democratic" societty, we are responsible for holding our representatives accountable for their actions. If they obfuscate these actions through lies, omissions, and other forms of trickery, we citizens are not able execute our duty to correct them. This is as true for domestic policy like the health care law as it is for foreign entanglements, like invading a half-a-dozen countries and pissing off half the world's population in the process.

    Gruber brags about using the peoples' lack of economic literacy to get his shitty bill through Congress, but the reason the people are so damned economically illiterate is because the government, having usurped the responsibility for primary and secondary education, failed to properly educate them in economics.

    The powers-that-be have dumbed-down the populace and now use the resulting mass ignorance to enact policies that educated people would reject. This is not how a representative republic maintains it's integrity. If a course correction is not made, and soon, our days of basking in light of liberty will come to an end and will not be regained for generations, if ever.

  • Walter Peck||

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean like the hyperventilation over McConnell saying his number one goal was to make Obama a one term president? I mean the gall of such a statement!! I do believe I'm gettin' the vapors.

  • Mark22||

    Doesn't a well-functioning democracy require a transparent government, to some degree?

    Heaven forbid! We cannot have THAT!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZrqdZFFb5c

  • Kure'i||

    *cough*47%*cough*

    "Legitimate rape."

    "Misunderestimated."

  • ||

    Don't remember seeing you around here before Kure'i.

    Hi Tony.

  • Kure'i||

    I've been around here a while. I just don't post that often.

  • ||

    "Tony|11.13.14 @ 5:06PM|#

    You people should attempt to put yourselves in the shoes of liberals for a second. They have to walk on eggshells 24/7"'

    THEY ? THEY ?

    HaHaHaHaHa

    Dude you take the cake. I have never in 59 years of life on this planet seen or heard such bullshit come out of one persons mouth fingers.

    You're a sicko Tony with very serious problems. Seek help.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHA.

    Sort of like when Todd Akins says something dumb about rape?

    Or maybe we should talk about things Ward Churchill said about America and 9/11 when it comnes to near-treasonous bullshit. Or maybe Jerimiah Wright.

    Near Treasonous Bullshit? YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO GO THERE.

  • JustAnotherAnimal||

    Nancy's position is that she didn't know Gruber until she finds out that she did know him.

    Honestly, can someone please kick the late Nancy Pelosi's decaying corpse into a deep hole somewhere? Please?

  • TAJW||

    It was...but they keep digging her up ever two years and propping her up in front of a podium so she can spout inane remarks.

  • brec||

    ...supporters of the law have not been transparent with the public.

    Is there a reason that "transparent" has replaced "honest"?

  • Mark22||

    Isn't it obvious? "Transparency" doesn't require actual truth. In fact, it goes much better with "lies", as in "transparent lies".

  • ||

    Yes. The progressives lies are thoroughly transparent.

    What I don't get is how blithely oblivious they manage to remain about the fact that they are walking around with no clothes on.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's less transparent.

  • jack adams||

    Liar, liar, empty pantsuit on fire!!

  • John Galt||

    Now that's just plain mean. heh heh.

  • Rebel Scum (formrly Rev-Match)||

    She had to pass the bill to find out who wrote it.

  • happel||

    There are some pretty awful people that have festered about our government for decades. Both parties have their fair share of disgusting people, but this woman may very well be the worst, most vile creature alive.

  • ruralcounsel||

    You know we won't have any justice in this country. Because justice would require that we take every congresscritter that voted for the ACA and impale them on 12 foot pikes set around the National Mall, and then set them on fire while they're still alive. That would be justice.

  • John Galt||

    Lie lie lie lie lie lie lie. No wonder the mad scientists who made it christened it their little "Nasty Piglosi" experiment.

  • Mark22||

    It obviously depends on the meaning of "know".

    "No, I don't [currently] know Gruber [in the biblical sense]."

  • Free Oregon||

    Why would we be surprised?

    She cannot read and understand what she reads. She clearly stated she'd know what's in the Obamacare bill only after it was passed and implemented. Ergo, she is illiterate.

    She also cannot write a simple declarative sentence. Has anyone ever tried to read and understand a bill she's introduced?

  • TAJW||

    When "being Grubered" becomes a verb, will it mean:

    1. You are being manipulated through calculated lies.

    Or

    2. You are being thrown under the bus.

    Speculation runs rampant.

  • tcaro39||

    Work 5 hours daily and make$3000/weekly... You'll need a computer and a reliable internet connection...
    Freelance job on following web == www.Work4Hour.Com

  • Sevo||

    You need to contact Jonathan Gruber. With any luck, he will need your assistance.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    A tenured prof at an institution that made its mark sucking off the government tit (and still does today even with their big endowment) in a deeply blue state. I'm sure he's sleeping soundly tonight.

  • Sevo||

    NotAnotherSkippy|11.13.14 @ 11:39PM|#
    "A tenured prof at an institution that made its mark sucking off the government tit (and still does today even with their big endowment) in a deeply blue state. I'm sure he's sleeping soundly tonight."

    I was joshin', but I'll still bet his sleep is no longer sound:
    (random pick)
    "The Obama administration is trying incredibly hard to distance itself from Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber in the wake of his comments on deceiving “stupid” American voters in order to get the president’s namesake health-care law passed."
    http://finance.yahoo.com/video.....41595.html
    He may still have his job, but you can bet his emails are no longer being returned.
    Happy Holidays, Jon!

  • Kure'i||

    Gruber's mom already contacted Tcaro39, but even she has disowned him. But fuck it, she clears $3000/week, and at only 5 hours per day. So she doesn't need any of his shit.

  • Kure'i||

    I can't watch any clip of Pelosi without being reminded of the mom from Arrested Development. And now, I will also be reminded of Sugar Free's tale of Nancy and John. Conclusion: she is slowly morphing into some kind of hybrid cringe-inducing/laughter-prompting, mind blasting Great Old One who will ultimately drain our sanity and drive us all to the pits of madness.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So, um, California.

  • Kure'i||

    Cthulhufornia?

  • Parkerchandler||

    We just are not interpreting SanFran Nan's comments in their proper context. We must remember, Nancy Pelosi's favorite word is, "the Word." Therefore when Nancy says, "I don't know 'professor Gruber," what she means is she has never, "known," the man in a context which is interpreted as it would be in, "the Word."
    This isn't hard to understand as long as we keep things in their proper context.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    Think about who we're talking about here; This freak is as loony as the left has to offer.

    Which is worse:
    She can't remember the lies she publicly hawked to promote Socialized Medicine, or she's lying, again.

  • Loki||

    There's three possible explanations:

    1) She's a lying mendacious useless cunt,
    2) She's a senile old useless cunt,
    3) Or both.

    No matter what, she's a useless cunt.

  • Metal70s||

    The Senile Old Bat needs to go.

  • josh||

    only in washington does someone believe that retracting their remarks mean they were never spoken or even thought.

  • Duelles||

    Hahahahaha, ! The Botox needle went too deep and froze her brain. It is so sad that democrat congressmen and voters support this farce. 1968 in Chicago convinced me that Democrats were unhealthy to be around. And they have fallen further. almost unimaginable. Sadder still is the congressional unwillingness to a constitutional congress and to uphold their oath of office. We voted for divided government so now divide! Be partisan. We voted for that.

  • Margaret1948||

    Fing liars!! I am so sick of them and the idiot's who believe their BS!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online