The Gruber Tapes

[carlfense]

 

 

 

Boy. They're sure trying hard to make this a scandal aren't they?

 

Crazy how easily some fall for it.

No more than equally crazy how some refuse to admit that there are actual scandals....

 

There sure are. I posted one of them 4 minutes before you posted this comment.

 

This isn't a scandal. Benghazi isn't a scandal. Fast and Furious isn't a scandal. From the evidence that I've seen so far nothing at the IRS has been a scandal. Solyndra is not a scandal. These are hype, not substance.

 

 

There are scandals. You're right about that. The above? Not at all.

 

You are completely wrong about Benghazi, Fast and Furious and the IRS.

Judicial Watch has filed enough FOI's that expose direct involvement via Holder, the Justice Dept, and probable links to the WH.

Just because you WISH it didn't fit the definition doesn't mean it doesn't.

If you like, I'd be glad to mail you some of those findings by JW

I also predict that (now that Elija Cummings and some other blockaders will no longer be in the majority obstructing these hearings), we will within the year have solid evidence and indictments

 

The evidence is always just over the horizon. Just wait . . . it's coming . . . I swear . . . this time I mean it . . .

[zoogs]

 

* SNIP *

Well, I won't bother re-creating the bias of various sources, but msnbc is about as kookie as you get.

However, even if we take their word as balanced, I wonder about your take on Pelosi's bald face lie..........?

 

Well, Rachel Maddow is quite liberal, just as House Republicans are conservative and each have their inclinations. Read her article, though, and I think you'll find which one is saying something and which ones are waving their arms around, and/or superficial mainstream frenzy coverage.

 

Specific to the quoted sections, you really don't find them to be useful? They seem to clear up some misunderstandings you have, which are common. If you disagree with them, what's the rebuttal?

[Comish]

 

 

 

 

Boy. They're sure trying hard to make this a scandal aren't they?

 

Crazy how easily some fall for it.

No more than equally crazy how some refuse to admit that there are actual scandals....

 

There sure are. I posted one of them 4 minutes before you posted this comment.

 

This isn't a scandal. Benghazi isn't a scandal. Fast and Furious isn't a scandal. From the evidence that I've seen so far nothing at the IRS has been a scandal. Solyndra is not a scandal. These are hype, not substance.

 

 

There are scandals. You're right about that. The above? Not at all.

 

You are completely wrong about Benghazi, Fast and Furious and the IRS.

Judicial Watch has filed enough FOI's that expose direct involvement via Holder, the Justice Dept, and probable links to the WH.

Just because you WISH it didn't fit the definition doesn't mean it doesn't.

If you like, I'd be glad to mail you some of those findings by JW

I also predict that (now that Elija Cummings and some other blockaders will no longer be in the majority obstructing these hearings), we will within the year have solid evidence and indictments

 

The evidence is always just over the horizon. Just wait . . . it's coming . . . I swear . . . this time I mean it . . .

 

Mock away Carl.........no problem

But you fail to respond to the Judicial Watch findings.......do you not believe them? or just not have access to them? or choose just to ignore them?

[Comish]

 

 

* SNIP *

Well, I won't bother re-creating the bias of various sources, but msnbc is about as kookie as you get.

However, even if we take their word as balanced, I wonder about your take on Pelosi's bald face lie..........?

 

Well, Rachel Maddow is quite liberal, just as House Republicans are conservative and each have their inclinations. Read her article, though, and I think you'll find which one is saying something and which ones are waving their arms around, and/or superficial mainstream frenzy coverage.

 

Specific to the quoted sections, you really don't find them to be useful? They seem to clear up some misunderstandings you have, which are common. If you disagree with them, what's the rebuttal?

 

" The entirety of the ACA process couldn’t have been much more transparent. There were countless open hearings, debates, meetings, and reports, all played out under the spotlight over the course of a year."

Hard to believe that could be written with a straight face.

Remember ZERO Republicans supported this......and it was fashioned for political advantage on Christmas Eve while the numbers still favored the dems; most notably highlighting Ben Nelson's embarrassing Corhhusker kickback making a mockery of himself and our state.

[zoogs]

Were the meetings and court hearings and reports not open?...isn't all of this laid out for the public to see, including these lectures by an economist who helped make the legislation?

 

Transparency doesn't mean without opposition.

[Comish]

Were the meetings and court hearings and reports not open?...isn't all of this laid out for the public to see, including these lectures by an economist who helped make the legislation?

 

Transparency doesn't mean without opposition.

If I recall correctly, the Repub's tried to point out the fallacies but had a difficult time getting their message out because the media by and large favored the prospect and had no intention of presenting arguments against.....

Regardless, I agree completely with your definition of transparency; In fact, I'm 100% in favor of FULL transparency 100% of the time on anything going on in the Capitol.

[carlfense]

Mock away Carl.........no problem

But you fail to respond to the Judicial Watch findings.......do you not believe them? or just not have access to them? or choose just to ignore them?

 

Post 'em here.

 

Judicial Watch makes me laugh nearly as often as that arsonist from California.

[carlfense]

Were the meetings and court hearings and reports not open?...isn't all of this laid out for the public to see, including these lectures by an economist who helped make the legislation?

 

Transparency doesn't mean without opposition.

Anyone who thinks that we didn't have a lengthy open debate about the ACA before passage isn't very familiar with the legislative history.

[Comish]

 

Mock away Carl.........no problem

But you fail to respond to the Judicial Watch findings.......do you not believe them? or just not have access to them? or choose just to ignore them?

 

Post 'em here.

 

Judicial Watch makes me laugh nearly as often as that arsonist from California.

 

Can't post them.

Paper copy by subscription.

But, I'd be happy to mail them to you.

[Junior]

 

 

Mock away Carl.........no problem

But you fail to respond to the Judicial Watch findings.......do you not believe them? or just not have access to them? or choose just to ignore them?

 

Post 'em here.

 

Judicial Watch makes me laugh nearly as often as that arsonist from California.

 

Can't post them.

Paper copy by subscription.

But, I'd be happy to mail them to you.

 

 

So you complain about MSNBC being too liberal to take seriously and then you use Judicial Watch as a source? That, my friends, is irony.

[BigRedBuster]

The party out of the white house has proven over the last number of Presidencies that they will always try to tie scandals to the President. If we haven't learned that yet then I don't know what to say.

[carlfense]

 

 

Mock away Carl.........no problem

But you fail to respond to the Judicial Watch findings.......do you not believe them? or just not have access to them? or choose just to ignore them?

 

Post 'em here.

 

Judicial Watch makes me laugh nearly as often as that arsonist from California.

 

Can't post them.

Paper copy by subscription.

But, I'd be happy to mail them to you.

 

Convenient. Once again . . . that evidence is just over the horizon . . .

[Whistlebritches]

 

 

Mock away Carl.........no problem

But you fail to respond to the Judicial Watch findings.......do you not believe them? or just not have access to them? or choose just to ignore them?

 

Post 'em here.

 

Judicial Watch makes me laugh nearly as often as that arsonist from California.

 

Can't post them.

Paper copy by subscription.

But, I'd be happy to mail them to you.

 

Why are these paper only and not a PDF?

 

I understand that paper is all you're given but I'm trying to understand why a company with a web presence would mail out physical copies.

[carlfense]

If anyone is interested in ACA lies (including the Pelosi claim above) here is a little trip down memory lane: http://www.politifact.com/subjects/health-care/

[Comish]

 

 

 

Mock away Carl.........no problem

But you fail to respond to the Judicial Watch findings.......do you not believe them? or just not have access to them? or choose just to ignore them?

 

Post 'em here.

 

Judicial Watch makes me laugh nearly as often as that arsonist from California.

 

Can't post them.

Paper copy by subscription.

But, I'd be happy to mail them to you.

 

 

So you complain about MSNBC being too liberal to take seriously and then you use Judicial Watch as a source? That, my friends, is irony.

 

So you are saying that once evidence is produced (in this case by FOI), that the " facts " produced are still not valid by virtue of the genesis of the source?