If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Weekly)   California GOP: How can we thwart Obamacare? "Hey, let's put up a phony website with the name similar to the legit coveredca.com, and make these stupid people more frustrated"   (blogs.laweekly.com) divider line 143
    More: Interesting, GOP, obamacare, California, California Democratic Party, stupidity, detours, California State Assembly, Courage Campaign  
•       •       •

3435 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Dec 2013 at 2:12 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 03:02:16 PM

firefly212: Flappyhead: skullkrusher: That's really farked up if true but it's a bit of a stretch to think the intention was to confuse.

Then what was it?

Look, he's just a GOP shill/amateur troll (redundant?)... they're not giving him a lot to work with... there's no reasonable explanation other than they were trying to mislead/confuse people... but he's gotta put forth some effort.


There's a lot of that going around.

That accusation, I mean.

Weak.
 
2013-12-05 03:03:56 PM
Democrats made a spoof site in '12, and did it without being evil. All it did was make a rhetorical point.

And it's still up -- http://www.romneytaxplan.com/ . I think there was a Fark thread about it.
 
2013-12-05 03:05:31 PM

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: How is this legal at all?


Free Speech?

Lying isn't against the law. Didn't Fox News win a lawsuit about a decade back on this?
 
2013-12-05 03:05:47 PM

phaseolus: Democrats made a spoof site in '12, and did it without being evil. All it did was make a rhetorical point.

And it's still up -- http://www.romneytaxplan.com/ . I think there was a Fark thread about it.


Again, there is a difference between the active law of the land and... well, NOT that.
 
2013-12-05 03:05:55 PM

Cletus C.: There's a lot of that going around.

That accusation, I mean.

Weak.


Have you thought that it could be due to you doing a lot of trolling lately? No, it must be literally everyone else and not you.
 
2013-12-05 03:06:48 PM

btchin trans-am: The California GOP is like a sideshow and this will go nowhere.

Remember what Wendy Davis accomplished in Texas? Nothing.


Wait until she's Governor.

And really, activating the dispirited majority of Texans who are democrats and exposing hypocrisy and incompetence are something.
 
2013-12-05 03:06:52 PM

TheMysticS: markie_farkie: Isn't willfully and knowingly attempting to deceive people by undermining the laws of the United States of America some kind of treasonable offense?

That's what I honestly want to know.
This shiat has gone too far. The Acorn debacle, blatant corporatism, voter fraud, The Egypt Trio,etc. etc.
When will the party of responsibility finally have to pay for all of their treasonous bullshiat?

Or is America really only an idea?
We were bought and paid for from the beginning.


Ten actual coveredca.com scam sites (you know, the kind that markie_farkie and you are alluding to) have been shut down by the states attorney generals office in the past month and criminal charges filed against the operators. This is not one of those. It's an information only site that answers some questions that people may have regarding California laws and how they interrelate with the PPACA as well as what obligations a citizen and insurance companies have under that law and some possible implications for the future as it gets fully implemented.

But you guys go on with your faux outrage over something that you entirely made up in your head. I googled "california health care" (and a few different iterations of that) and the top (non-advertising) pick was always coveredca.com (which should probably be a .gov domain anyway just to help prevent any scams in the first place, but that's an entirely different topic).
 
2013-12-05 03:07:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: There's a lot of that going around.

That accusation, I mean.

Weak.

Have you thought that it could be due to you doing a lot of trolling lately? No, it must be literally everyone else and not you.


To be fair, the guy called Skullkrusher a shill-troll. I may disagree with him from time to time, but I'm pretty sure he's just a dude.
 
2013-12-05 03:07:47 PM

mgshamster: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: How is this legal at all?

Free Speech?

Lying isn't against the law. Didn't Fox News win a lawsuit about a decade back on this?


I feel like fraud might be against the law, though.
 
2013-12-05 03:08:28 PM

LasersHurt: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: There's a lot of that going around.

That accusation, I mean.

Weak.

Have you thought that it could be due to you doing a lot of trolling lately? No, it must be literally everyone else and not you.

To be fair, the guy called Skullkrusher a shill-troll. I may disagree with him from time to time, but I'm pretty sure he's just a dude.


Granted he is, but dudes troll all the time without necessarily having to be affiliated.
 
2013-12-05 03:09:44 PM

LasersHurt: phaseolus: Democrats made a spoof site in '12, and did it without being evil. All it did was make a rhetorical point.

And it's still up -- http://www.romneytaxplan.com/ . I think there was a Fark thread about it.

Again, there is a difference between the active law of the land and... well, NOT that.



Agreed. I wasn't defending Repubs, was only reliving good times...
 
2013-12-05 03:12:02 PM
Republicans could shut down the government for 17 days to get their way. It worked last time..

OH WAIT, no it didn't!

/Plan Boehner.

Seriously Cletus, we're tired of you.
 
2013-12-05 03:12:39 PM

cameroncrazy1984: mgshamster: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: How is this legal at all?

Free Speech?

Lying isn't against the law. Didn't Fox News win a lawsuit about a decade back on this?

I feel like fraud might be against the law, though.


If the site isn't selling a fake plan, how are they performing fraud?

It's despicable, but I'm not sure its illegal.
 
2013-12-05 03:12:42 PM

mgshamster: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: How is this legal at all?

Free Speech?

Lying isn't against the law. Didn't Fox News win a lawsuit about a decade back on this?


Deliberately lying in a way that could cause harm to others should be illegal.
 
2013-12-05 03:13:13 PM

themindiswatching: Apparently the GOP can't even hire decent web designers. Their stupid website keeps scrolling back to the top when I try to go to the bottom.


that is the circle jerk feature
 
2013-12-05 03:14:11 PM

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: mgshamster: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: How is this legal at all?

Free Speech?

Lying isn't against the law. Didn't Fox News win a lawsuit about a decade back on this?

Deliberately lying in a way that could cause harm to others should be illegal.


I agree with you in principle, but I am pretty sure the entire Food industry would go bye bye.

//Organic gardens for all!
 
2013-12-05 03:16:38 PM

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: Deliberately lying in a way that could cause harm to others should be illegal.


Please find the lies on that site and link to them here. I went through the FAQ and I couldn't find any. In fact it explicitly states that you must buy healthcare that meets PPACA standards and goes over who can legally sell it to you.
 
2013-12-05 03:19:59 PM

Corvus: markie_farkie: Isn't willfully and knowingly attempting to deceive people by undermining the laws of the United States of America some kind of treasonable offense?

Seriously. Maybe not legally treason but how in the hell is this not being condemned by everyone across the nation.

If Obamacare is so bad why do Republicans feel they need to sabotage it?


Probably(And I'm just spitballing here) because the website doesn't do anything "bad". It sounds like it doesn't take you through a fake signup process or lie to you, it supposedly educates you, which is fine. The fact that they made the names so similar, it never linked to the official site until the site was exposed, and that it really didn't do anything all go by the wayside if it didn't "hurt" anyone.

Oh, and the Right will defend the absolute sleaziest actions by their politicians, so this works out to small potatoes in comparison.

And I agree with your last statement, too.
 
2013-12-05 03:20:44 PM

Cletus C.: firefly212: Flappyhead: skullkrusher: That's really farked up if true but it's a bit of a stretch to think the intention was to confuse.

Then what was it?

Look, he's just a GOP shill/amateur troll (redundant?)... they're not giving him a lot to work with... there's no reasonable explanation other than they were trying to mislead/confuse people... but he's gotta put forth some effort.

There's a lot of that going around.

That accusation, I mean.

Weak.


Look, there are plenty of people I frequently disagree with who aren't trolls, Weaver, LasersHurt, and others from both sides of the spectrum... but skullkrusher is just too farking obvious wiith his mental contortions to be taken seriously. If you're gonna say he's not trolling, then tell me, do you think it's reasonable to say "it's a  bit of a strech to think that the intention was to confuse." Because, to me, that's just some soft-trolling... it's not a stretch at all to think the intent was to confuse, to the contrary, you have to stretch pretty far to think that the intention was something else... heck, I can't even think of what possible intent naming the website so similarly could possibly be, other than to confuse.

All due respect to him, but he's done a better job of trollololing in other threads, but that's what rattles his rocks.... I'm not mad at him, and I don't hate him for it... but sometimes we should call a spade a spade.
 
2013-12-05 03:20:45 PM

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: mgshamster: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: How is this legal at all?

Free Speech?

Lying isn't against the law. Didn't Fox News win a lawsuit about a decade back on this?

Deliberately lying in a way that could cause harm to others should be illegal.


I wholeheartedly agree.

But there are multiple industries that would fight against that: oil companies, alternative medicine, supplements & vitamin pill companies, conservative media, certain pharmaceutical companies, certain biotech companies, pretty much any advertising company...
 
2013-12-05 03:22:39 PM

Radioactive Ass: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: Deliberately lying in a way that could cause harm to others should be illegal.

Please find the lies on that site and link to them here. I went through the FAQ and I couldn't find any. In fact it explicitly states that you must buy healthcare that meets PPACA standards and goes over who can legally sell it to you.


Well now that I've actually gone to the website, I'm going to shut my mouth. Shouldn't have trusted the article.
 
2013-12-05 03:24:15 PM
Manufactured controversy or legitimate rage over an allegedly "fake" website? You decide.


I can't decide!

1. it's the GOP
2. it's the GOP
3. this has to do with the ACA
4. it's the GOP
5. are circus clown evil by nature?

well, i wouldn't put it past them.
 
2013-12-05 03:24:35 PM
Listen Libtardomos

Un-bunch your panties, it wasnt intended as a factual website, no harm no fowl. Libbos just cant let anything go, JEESH, it was just a joke.
 
2013-12-05 03:28:10 PM

Triple Oak: Obamacare greenlights for Thursday: 2

Yippee.


So submit something else already...
 
2013-12-05 03:31:02 PM
Isn't this type of thing kind of illegal?
 
2013-12-05 03:43:07 PM

Mikey1969: Triple Oak: Obamacare greenlights for Thursday: 2

Yippee.

So submit something else already...


Not my personal greenlights, the amount total today. I wouldn't waste my time on submitting every article, we have many of them daily.
 
2013-12-05 03:47:37 PM

Black_Lazerus: themindiswatching: Apparently the GOP can't even hire decent web designers. Their stupid website keeps scrolling back to the top when I try to go to the bottom.

that is the circle jerk feature


Lulz.
 
2013-12-05 03:48:17 PM

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: Well now that I've actually gone to the website, I'm going to shut my mouth. Shouldn't have trusted the article.


No worries. I took note that TFA intentionally didn't link to the site in question, I can only assume that was to try and get people to take their word for it instead of judging for themselves. I suspect that most of the people calling this illegal took the article at face value as well.

Like I said earlier in the thread, the CA state AG's office has taken down 10 actual scam sites and are prosecuting the operators for fraud. This isn't even close to being one of them.
 
2013-12-05 03:49:49 PM

Radioactive Ass: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: Well now that I've actually gone to the website, I'm going to shut my mouth. Shouldn't have trusted the article.

No worries. I took note that TFA intentionally didn't link to the site in question, I can only assume that was to try and get people to take their word for it instead of judging for themselves. I suspect that most of the people calling this illegal took the article at face value as well.

Like I said earlier in the thread, the CA state AG's office has taken down 10 actual scam sites and are prosecuting the operators for fraud. This isn't even close to being one of them.


Is it a scam or fraud? No. Is it deliberate misinformation? You bet.
 
2013-12-05 03:53:54 PM

qorkfiend: Radioactive Ass: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: Well now that I've actually gone to the website, I'm going to shut my mouth. Shouldn't have trusted the article.

No worries. I took note that TFA intentionally didn't link to the site in question, I can only assume that was to try and get people to take their word for it instead of judging for themselves. I suspect that most of the people calling this illegal took the article at face value as well.

Like I said earlier in the thread, the CA state AG's office has taken down 10 actual scam sites and are prosecuting the operators for fraud. This isn't even close to being one of them.

Is it a scam or fraud? No. Is it deliberate misinformation? You bet.


It's not even deliberate misinformation... From what I read, much if it is simple answers to FAQs. I got all caught up in the outrage, because given the GOP track record, I assumed they'd done something awful as usual. It doesn't seem like the case.
 
2013-12-05 03:54:01 PM

qorkfiend: Is it a scam or fraud? No. Is it deliberate misinformation? You bet.


Well then surely you can link to some specifics here right?
 
2013-12-05 03:54:16 PM

Radioactive Ass: TheMysticS: markie_farkie: Isn't willfully and knowingly attempting to deceive people by undermining the laws of the United States of America some kind of treasonable offense?

That's what I honestly want to know.
This shiat has gone too far. The Acorn debacle, blatant corporatism, voter fraud, The Egypt Trio,etc. etc.
When will the party of responsibility finally have to pay for all of their treasonous bullshiat?

Or is America really only an idea?
We were bought and paid for from the beginning.

Ten actual coveredca.com scam sites (you know, the kind that markie_farkie and you are alluding to) have been shut down by the states attorney generals office in the past month and criminal charges filed against the operators. This is not one of those. It's an information only site that answers some questions that people may have regarding California laws and how they interrelate with the PPACA as well as what obligations a citizen and insurance companies have under that law and some possible implications for the future as it gets fully implemented.

But you guys go on with your faux outrage over something that you entirely made up in your head. I googled "california health care" (and a few different iterations of that) and the top (non-advertising) pick was always coveredca.com (which should probably be a .gov domain anyway just to help prevent any scams in the first place, but that's an entirely different topic).


Lulz.
Hey, nerd, back off!
No, really. Honestly. This ain't the straw what broke the camel's back. That camel is now in traction.

I have a new camel now. His name is Bob.
 
2013-12-05 03:55:14 PM

FlashHarry: once again i ask: if obamacare is so bad, why do you have to lie and cheat to make your point?


The only reason the GOP is against it is because they think it'll garner them votes.
 
2013-12-05 03:59:30 PM

Radioactive Ass: No worries. I took note that TFA intentionally didn't link to the site in question


So what would THIS be?

Hiltzik says the site,  http://coveringhealthcareca.com , changed its tune just a few hours after he published his piece by including links to the official Covered California site.

All that's changed from TFA is my attempt to get the link to populate correctly, but you are MORE than welcome to go right back to TFA and click yourself.

So yeah, they linked to it. That's what the blue words meant.
 
2013-12-05 03:59:54 PM

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: That's really farked up if true but it's a bit of a stretch to think the intention was to confuse.

Oh yeah, it's a real stretch to think that a political party who has made sabotaging the ACA their number one priority might have done this on purpose. What you think their intent was?


I think they're at least competent enough to make the name something that is easily confused with the real one. Coveredcali or something like that. Coveringhealthcareca is not even close to coveredca
 
2013-12-05 04:01:10 PM

Corvus: markie_farkie: Isn't willfully and knowingly attempting to deceive people by undermining the laws of the United States of America some kind of treasonable offense?

Seriously. Maybe not legally treason but how in the hell is this not being condemned by everyone across the nation.

If Obamacare is so bad why do Republicans feel they need to sabotage it?


Because people are too stupid to know what's good for them! You know! The same argument they make against liberal policies!

[projector.jpeg]
 
2013-12-05 04:07:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: mgshamster: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: How is this legal at all?

Free Speech?

Lying isn't against the law. Didn't Fox News win a lawsuit about a decade back on this?

I feel like fraud might be against the law, though.


If they're not taking money, I'm not sure it can be fraud.

/but hey, I don't have no fancy GED in Law, so don't take my word for it
 
2013-12-05 04:07:39 PM
Meh - the page is mostly true information about the ACA, informative and there's a link to the actual covered california in the master page links.  I've got other things to be more outraged about.
 
2013-12-05 04:11:11 PM

firefly212: Flappyhead: skullkrusher: That's really farked up if true but it's a bit of a stretch to think the intention was to confuse.

Then what was it?

Look, he's just a GOP shill/amateur troll (redundant?)... they're not giving him a lot to work with... there's no reasonable explanation other than they were trying to mislead/confuse people... but he's gotta put forth some effort.


Seriously? If I wanted to confuse people about a site called coveredca.com I'd call it coveringca.com and make it look like the real thing and I sure as shiat wouldn't have big clickable icons walking me directly to the real site as a place to purchase insurance in addition to another link at the bottom to the actual website. Maybe you think everyone is as dim as you but there is no way in fark someone with the brains of a carrot would think they are... I don't even know. What do you think their hope was?
 
2013-12-05 04:13:44 PM

Empty Matchbook: cameroncrazy1984: mgshamster: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: How is this legal at all?

Free Speech?

Lying isn't against the law. Didn't Fox News win a lawsuit about a decade back on this?

I feel like fraud might be against the law, though.

If they're not taking money, I'm not sure it can be fraud.

/but hey, I don't have no fancy GED in Law, so don't take my word for it


I always thought there was a component to fraud that included misrepresenting oneself or one's organization.
 
2013-12-05 04:15:32 PM

skullkrusher: If I wanted to confuse people about a site called coveredca.com I'd call it coveringca.com and make it look like the real thing and I sure as shiat wouldn't have big clickable icons walking me directly to the real site as a place to purchase insurance in addition to another link at the bottom to the actual website. Maybe you think everyone is as dim as you but there is no way in fark someone with the brains of a carrot would think they are... I don't even know. What do you think their hope was?


I don't agree with your politics but you're right.

/Manufactured outrage is irritating regardless of left/right agenda
 
2013-12-05 04:18:06 PM

firefly212: Cletus C.: firefly212: Flappyhead: skullkrusher: That's really farked up if true but it's a bit of a stretch to think the intention was to confuse.

Then what was it?

Look, he's just a GOP shill/amateur troll (redundant?)... they're not giving him a lot to work with... there's no reasonable explanation other than they were trying to mislead/confuse people... but he's gotta put forth some effort.

There's a lot of that going around.

That accusation, I mean.

Weak.

Look, there are plenty of people I frequently disagree with who aren't trolls, Weaver, LasersHurt, and others from both sides of the spectrum... but skullkrusher is just too farking obvious wiith his mental contortions to be taken seriously. If you're gonna say he's not trolling, then tell me, do you think it's reasonable to say "it's a  bit of a strech to think that the intention was to confuse." Because, to me, that's just some soft-trolling... it's not a stretch at all to think the intent was to confuse, to the contrary, you have to stretch pretty far to think that the intention was something else... heck, I can't even think of what possible intent naming the website so similarly could possibly be, other than to confuse.

All due respect to him, but he's done a better job of trollololing in other threads, but that's what rattles his rocks.... I'm not mad at him, and I don't hate him for it... but sometimes we should call a spade a spade.


Think about this shiat logically. Name isn't even close. Site looks nothing like the real one. It isn't advertised as the place to buy insurance. It provides links to the exchange and walks you right the fark to it. Nowhere there can you possibly think you are buying insurance. It's purpose is to undermine Obamacare. It has links to critical articles. There is no reason to believe that it is there to trick people... Trick them into what? Thinking going to that website magically signs them up for insurance? I assure you, there are no Republicans under your bed. This doesn't make me a troll
 
2013-12-05 04:19:33 PM

skullkrusher: firefly212: Flappyhead: skullkrusher: That's really farked up if true but it's a bit of a stretch to think the intention was to confuse.

Then what was it?

Look, he's just a GOP shill/amateur troll (redundant?)... they're not giving him a lot to work with... there's no reasonable explanation other than they were trying to mislead/confuse people... but he's gotta put forth some effort.

Seriously? If I wanted to confuse people about a site called coveredca.com I'd call it coveringca.com and make it look like the real thing and I sure as shiat wouldn't have big clickable icons walking me directly to the real site as a place to purchase insurance in addition to another link at the bottom to the actual website.



Darn, somebody parked coveringca.com at GoDaddy, presumably for big bucks. My nefarious plan to put a porn site there has been foiled!
 
2013-12-05 04:20:54 PM

skullkrusher: That's really farked up if true but it's a bit of a stretch to think the intention was to confuse.


We've seen websites like this before - enjoying the veneer of legitimacy where only a second look reveals the intention. Under "What's New," both visible articles are about losing coverage. Click on "I don't have health insurance" and you get a tiny link to the real website and a calculator revealing how much your tax penalty will be in 2014. The overall message is "If you have health insurance, you're going to lose it; if you don't have health insurance, you're going to starve; if you're an employer, you might as well shoot yourself."

The fact that these plans are subsidized is, of course, glossed over; the fact that most insurance plans are already ACA-compliant is ignored. Sort of reminds me of those news articles that trail themselves: "Is your ice cream trying to kill you?" followed up by a story on lactose intolerance.

The intention was absolutely to confuse. The site doesn't even look all that different from Healthcare.gov. This doesn't come as a huge surprise from the party that put up flyers in African-American neighborhoods with the wrong date for election day, or voted to defund ACORN years after it had been dismantled. This is how you play when you can't play fair.
 
2013-12-05 04:23:08 PM

Mikey1969: Radioactive Ass: No worries. I took note that TFA intentionally didn't link to the site in question

So what would THIS be?

Hiltzik says the site,  http://coveringhealthcareca.com , changed its tune just a few hours after he published his piece by including links to the official Covered California site.

All that's changed from TFA is my attempt to get the link to populate correctly, but you are MORE than welcome to go right back to TFA and click yourself.

So yeah, they linked to it. That's what the blue words meant.


Cached from 29 Nov:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MW7l9Uyjux4J:co ve ringhealthcareca.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

They added a prominent link to the state exchange site. That's it as far as I can see. Oh noes, they are trying to confuse people into something something. Take this fauxrage quote by the California Democratic Party:

It would appear Republicans in California have no qualms about following their national Party's lead when it comes to spreading misinformation about the Affordable Care Act. Developing and promoting a bogus website to lure consumers away from the real www.CoveredCA.com amounts to denying Californians affordable health coverage - which appears to be the GOP's central organizing principle these days.

is full of lies and half-truths at best ("It would appear"? Really? Nice weasel wording there).

The site does none of the above. A Google search for several iterations of California and healthcare, health insurance, health insurance premiums and so on all have the legit state site as the top link (aside from ads by Kaiser, the states largest HMO and BCBS California along with a smattering of local insurance brokers in some cases, but that may be me seeing as I'm actually in California so the Google logarithm may take that into account). The FAQ explicitly states that you must buy PPACA compliant health insurance from legitimate sources and tells you who those sources are. It also covers how California laws interact with the PPACA and what they mean for the consumer. Nowhere does it imply, much less state, that it is related to the state exchange nor is their url name even close to the states url unless you're a blithering idiot or a member off the California Democratic Party (but I repeat myself).

Those are the lies that I saw, the web site that they are talking about does none of those things.
 
2013-12-05 04:26:09 PM

peasandcarrots: skullkrusher: That's really farked up if true but it's a bit of a stretch to think the intention was to confuse.

We've seen websites like this before - enjoying the veneer of legitimacy where only a second look reveals the intention. Under "What's New," both visible articles are about losing coverage. Click on "I don't have health insurance" and you get a tiny link to the real website and a calculator revealing how much your tax penalty will be in 2014. The overall message is "If you have health insurance, you're going to lose it; if you don't have health insurance, you're going to starve; if you're an employer, you might as well shoot yourself."

The fact that these plans are subsidized is, of course, glossed over; the fact that most insurance plans are already ACA-compliant is ignored. Sort of reminds me of those news articles that trail themselves: "Is your ice cream trying to kill you?" followed up by a story on lactose intolerance.

The intention was absolutely to confuse. The site doesn't even look all that different from Healthcare.gov. This doesn't come as a huge surprise from the party that put up flyers in African-American neighborhoods with the wrong date for election day, or voted to defund ACORN years after it had been dismantled. This is how you play when you can't play fair.


No doubt the intent is to undermine. I don't see how it is in any way possible someone is being tricked here, however.
 
2013-12-05 04:28:11 PM

Radioactive Ass: Mikey1969: Radioactive Ass: No worries. I took note that TFA intentionally didn't link to the site in question

So what would THIS be?

Hiltzik says the site,  http://coveringhealthcareca.com , changed its tune just a few hours after he published his piece by including links to the official Covered California site.

All that's changed from TFA is my attempt to get the link to populate correctly, but you are MORE than welcome to go right back to TFA and click yourself.

So yeah, they linked to it. That's what the blue words meant.

Cached from 29 Nov:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MW7l9Uyjux4J:co ve ringhealthcareca.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

They added a prominent link to the state exchange site. That's it as far as I can see. Oh noes, they are trying to confuse people into something something. Take this fauxrage quote by the California Democratic Party:

It would appear Republicans in California have no qualms about following their national Party's lead when it comes to spreading misinformation about the Affordable Care Act. Developing and promoting a bogus website to lure consumers away from the real www.CoveredCA.com amounts to denying Californians affordable health coverage - which appears to be the GOP's central organizing principle these days.

is full of lies and half-truths at best ("It would appear"? Really? Nice weasel wording there).

The site does none of the above. A Google search for several iterations of California and healthcare, health insurance, health insurance premiums and so on all have the legit state site as the top link (aside from ads by Kaiser, the states largest HMO and BCBS California along with a smattering of local insurance brokers in some cases, but that may be me seeing as I'm actually in California so the Google logarithm may take that into account). The FAQ explicitly states that you must buy PPACA compliant health insurance from legitimate sources and tells you who those sources are. It also covers how California laws interact with the PPACA and what they mean for the consumer. Nowhere does it imply, much less state, that it is related to the state exchange nor is their url name even close to the states url unless you're a blithering idiot or a member off the California Democratic Party (but I repeat myself).

Those are the lies that I saw, the web site that they are talking about does none of those things.


Hehe "lure" people away like the Internet is the Sahara and once going to the GOP site people will die of exposure before finding the actual exchange site
 
2013-12-05 04:33:05 PM

markie_farkie: Isn't willfully and knowingly attempting to deceive people by undermining the laws of the United States of America some kind of treasonable offense?


Sedition.  That's what the Tea Party is already guilty of.

a person may be punished for sedition only when he or she makes statements that create a Clear and Present Danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect

Treason:  Any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information


Based on that, I'd say the Tea Party as a group is already guilty of Sedition.  But Treason seems to require some sort of interaction with a foreign entity.
 
2013-12-05 04:37:48 PM

Radioactive Ass: Mikey1969: Radioactive Ass: No worries. I took note that TFA intentionally didn't link to the site in question

So what would THIS be?

Hiltzik says the site,  http://coveringhealthcareca.com , changed its tune just a few hours after he published his piece by including links to the official Covered California site.

All that's changed from TFA is my attempt to get the link to populate correctly, but you are MORE than welcome to go right back to TFA and click yourself.

So yeah, they linked to it. That's what the blue words meant.

Cached from 29 Nov:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MW7l9Uyjux4J:co ve ringhealthcareca.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

They added a prominent link to the state exchange site. That's it as far as I can see. Oh noes, they are trying to confuse people into something something. Take this fauxrage quote by the California Democratic Party:

It would appear Republicans in California have no qualms about following their national Party's lead when it comes to spreading misinformation about the Affordable Care Act. Developing and promoting a bogus website to lure consumers away from the real www.CoveredCA.com amounts to denying Californians affordable health coverage - which appears to be the GOP's central organizing principle these days.

is full of lies and half-truths at best ("It would appear"? Really? Nice weasel wording there).

The site does none of the above. A Google search for several iterations of California and healthcare, health insurance, health insurance premiums and so on all have the legit state site as the top link (aside from ads by Kaiser, the states largest HMO and BCBS California along with a smattering of local insurance brokers in some cases, but that may be me seeing as I'm actually in California so the Google logarithm may take that into account). The FAQ explicitly states that you must buy PPACA compliant health insurance from legitimate sources and tells you who those sources are. I ...


I don't see your point. Here is your statement:

No worries. I took note that TFA intentionally didn't link to the site in question

I pointed out how full of shiat you were by showing the EXACT link from TFA that linked to "the site in question". So not sure what you're doing replying back with this word salad. You claimed that there was no link, I showed how you were false, you respond with something completely off from what I said.

Is this usually a "winning" tactic for you?
 
2013-12-05 04:44:29 PM
Shift change, Cheetus out, Skulldugger in. Would you mind handing it over to Tbaggy? He hasn't had a chance today.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report