Reply With Quote
My head asplode.
It must be. Very likely it's not.
Why is it you think that 20% of April's wavers for health care legislation is given to businesses in Pelosi's district?
I wonder what the total numbers are. Heard this news and it doesn't surprise me one bit. Though she possibly has no direct involvement in such decisions, it seems obvious someone who controls the determination of these policies wants her to win again in 2012.
Nearly 20 percent of new Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-18-2011 at 11:47 AM.
My head asplode.
Yeah, Fox Repug Propaganda network is slandering Pelosi full time on this, which several articles have fully debunked.
But to Fox sheeple, if it's on Fox, it must be true.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_863252.html
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/...h-care-waivers
I swear man, the GOP is pretty much the party of liars now. Its past epidemic proportions at this point.
You know I'm not a GOP fan, but if you read the article, GOP appears nowhere in that.
I bet you 340943423423223200898892834 cents the GOP is behind it.
Teysha, tell me the author isn't a republican.]
Look at his list of articles.
http://dailycaller.com/author/mattboyle/
Indeed. Yet, the GOP was not mentioned in the article. Should I assume a liberal poster is creating a democratic platform with a blog post? Hardly.
You aint got no cents.
See what I did there?
LOL
@mboyle1
Matthew Boyle
Trump's a no-go. Oh well. But, wanted to hear him to Obama: "Mr. President, YOU'RE FIRED."
Could've sworn you just quoted WC.
I don't see why this article has to be part of the official GOP platform anyway. GOP operatives, which this man is one of, are out lying. The GOP platform is fairly meaningless in any event. The people out making the rounds on daily talk shows are the ones pushing the GOP message on a daily basis. And thats Boyle.
This guy just isn't some random blog post. He's got a platform and he's spreading his lies from it. He's a Republican. Its more than safe to say this is the GOP lying once again.
Dude, what did he lie about in this article? Seriously.
I would've exepected the WC spin till disavow approach, but he actually didn't do this in the article.
Is it slanted? Of course. It's an OP. Did he lie? I don't think so.
What's being missed is the fact that the waivers are pretty legit and more of an unintended consequence of the Fed bumping up against self insured pools.
The lie is in the omission that Pelosi has nothing to do with this situation. The lies are in spreading this as a story all over talk shows. Why must it be confined to that one article? Is he talking about the situation over and over on GOP shows and pushing the view that this is somehow corruption or is he actually giving the facts of the situation?
Do me a favor. Go look over Boyle's twitter feed where he talks about going on shows to talk about this corruption. Thanks.
Omit? There was no statement or active implication that Pelosi was responsible. The implication is latent, although since she is one of the Hydra of Obamacare, it really gets weighted. I did mention that the omission of the actual cause of the waivers was telling. My bad. I thought we were discussing the OP, not the underworld of GOP politics.
I actually wouldn't give a bucket of warm spit for Boyle's views. I'm not real motivated to follow him on twitter. But thanks anyway.
Come the on.
My initial point was that this was another example of the GOP lying. The guy is going on air all ing day to lie and spread his bull so while I don't even agree with your above statement even if I grant you that this article is fine it doesn't change anything.
My bad. I thought we were discussing the OP, not the underworld of GOP politics.
You were sure motivated to defend him. And if you're going to defend him maybe you should gain the proper context? You don't have to follow him, I didn't. A simple look at his time line gives some context to what the guys line of thinking is.
Dude, I didn't offer any defense whatsoever outside of saying, "Read the OP".
I wasn't looking for Boyle's context. I don't even know who the he is and really could care less.
This brings up a point tho. I agree context is a telling tool for grokking meaning. But at the same time, it can be like driving a nail with a saw. Context is not uber alles. It's a tool for analysis. But that analysis did nothing to invalidate the actual OP. You want to say he's a shill? Ok. He's a shill. Really went out on a limb with that one.
Funny how it's OK with you to assume corruption in coincidental events involving republicans, but not with democrats.
Isn't that called hypocrisy?
"assume corruption in coincidental events involving republicans"
all politicians are (sooner or later) corrupt(ed), but Repug politicians are more corrupt.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
