"Obamacare subsidies illegal" ruling thrown out. (claim, women, bill)

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Date matters. Before the ACA lawsuits, Gruber stated one thing. After the lawsuits went to court, Gruber stated the exact opposite. The legal term for that is... perjury.

Gruber stated one thing, then Gruber retracted his comments. That's not perjury. That's correcting one's misstatements. Perjury involves sworn testimony in a court of law.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by pknopp

She was charged with "disorderly conduct".

The city had a LAW to enforce segregation on city buses.

An Act of Courage, The Arrest Records of Rosa Parks

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

The city had a LAW to enforce segregation on city buses.

An Act of Courage, The Arrest Records of Rosa Parks

Laws not enforced really are not laws. They charged her with disorderly conduct.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Not me, but yes, it does make your argument completely irrelevant. As opposed to making a good solid argument you only wish to demonize those you disagree with.

Epic conflation.

Calling someone's comments irrelevant is not "demonization".

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Epic conflation.

Calling someone's comments irrelevant is not "demonization".

Out of context, correct. Next time read the entire conversation.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Laws not enforced really are not laws. They charged her with disorderly conduct.

AND still, there WAS a LAW, she knowingly BROKE that law, and subsequently drew attention to the injustice of that LAW. That's CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

If no law is broken, then it's NOT civil disobedience.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Out of context, correct. Next time read the entire conversation.

I did read it. No one was DEMONized. Shame on you for being dishonest!

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Gruber stated one thing, then Gruber retracted his comments.

Gruber didn't "retract" his statements until after the ACA cases went to court. Why did the law actually mean what it says before, but suddenly now it somehow doesn't? Gruber's flip flop is very politically transparent. Only a fool or someone completely lacking integrity would believe his supposed "retraction."

And perjury is deliberately telling an untruth under oath in court. There is sufficient evidence to suspect that Gruber committed perjury, based on his multiple recorded prior statements.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

AND still, there WAS a LAW, she knowingly BROKE that law, and subsequently drew attention to the injustice of that LAW. That's CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

If no law is broken, then it's NOT civil disobedience.

There were no laws against camping in the park.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/ny...anted=all&_r=0

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

I did read it. No one was DEMONized. Shame on you for being dishonest!

Seems to be a typical tactic here when backed into a corner.