New Liberal word for lie - speak-o
Jul 25, 2014 19:11:01 #
This was on Fox News "Special Report" tonight.
Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who is considered by many to be the architect of the ACA law, and who told the New York Times, "I know more about this law than any other economist." He's filed amicus briefs in the relevant cases confirming liberals' assertions that it was never anyone's intention that only state-based exchange enrollees are eligible for taxpayer subsidies. Arguments to the contrary, he's said, are "screwy," "nutty," "stupid," and "desperate." In case he wasn't making himself clear, Gruber appeared on MSNBC this week and said this:
Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it's a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the 'federal' states.
But, back in 2012, he said this, "If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits." He affirmed conservatives' argument in back then by sharing his own expertise about the law as it's written. Then, when his own explanation became politically problematic, he reversed positions, shamelessly arguing that "literally" nobody had ever intended to make the case that he himself had explicitly laid out. Who's the "criminal," again? The Left, gobsmacked by this discovery, cast about for answers, and Gruber gave them one this morning. It was comically pathetic:
"I honestly dont remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it...My subsequent statement was just a speak-oyou know, like a typo."
A "speak-o." That's a new one. He was just confused, you guys. He accidentally said the wrong thing. He was "speaking off the cuff." People make mistakes. But do they make "off the cuff speak-o mistakes" repeatedly, and in prepared remarks?
Here he is, in his own words ... you'll get a laugh out of this (or maybe you'll cry.)
www.youtube.com/embed/LbMmWhfZyEI?feature=player_embedded
www.youtube.com/embed/bOXP9Juia_U?feature=player_embedded
Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who is considered by many to be the architect of the ACA law, and who told the New York Times, "I know more about this law than any other economist." He's filed amicus briefs in the relevant cases confirming liberals' assertions that it was never anyone's intention that only state-based exchange enrollees are eligible for taxpayer subsidies. Arguments to the contrary, he's said, are "screwy," "nutty," "stupid," and "desperate." In case he wasn't making himself clear, Gruber appeared on MSNBC this week and said this:
Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it's a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the 'federal' states.
But, back in 2012, he said this, "If you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits." He affirmed conservatives' argument in back then by sharing his own expertise about the law as it's written. Then, when his own explanation became politically problematic, he reversed positions, shamelessly arguing that "literally" nobody had ever intended to make the case that he himself had explicitly laid out. Who's the "criminal," again? The Left, gobsmacked by this discovery, cast about for answers, and Gruber gave them one this morning. It was comically pathetic:
"I honestly dont remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it...My subsequent statement was just a speak-oyou know, like a typo."
A "speak-o." That's a new one. He was just confused, you guys. He accidentally said the wrong thing. He was "speaking off the cuff." People make mistakes. But do they make "off the cuff speak-o mistakes" repeatedly, and in prepared remarks?
Here he is, in his own words ... you'll get a laugh out of this (or maybe you'll cry.)
www.youtube.com/embed/LbMmWhfZyEI?feature=player_embedded
www.youtube.com/embed/bOXP9Juia_U?feature=player_embedded
Jul 25, 2014 19:17:33 #
The Supreme Court does not deal in what was intended but the wording of the law as it is written since mind reading is not part of their purview.
Jul 26, 2014 01:53:54 #
And they continually get away with it. It's impossible to stop it now. It's beyond any action. Nothing can be done. It's a lost cause.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.