These ad hominem attacks on the New York Times, one of the few quality newspapers left in America, have really gotten out of hand. The Times is a big paper. It has a lot of content. When you have that much daily content, there’s bound to be errors, mistakes, and the occasional bad egg. From everything I’ve ever read on the subject, the Times is no more or less subject to errors than any other paper, let alone being cited for “fraud” or “plagiarism.” As for “shoddy journalism,” the Times is shoulders above most papers in quality and content. It’s a sign of poor taste to deplore the Times quality of journalism.

If you don’t read the Times, at least once in while, then you are not very well informed.

“Whatever the current law is now, leave it alone. If currently abortions were funded by taxpayers, continue that. Right now they are not, so the Stupak Amendment preserves the status quo.”

Well, that defeats an important aspect of the bill. Here’s the problem: For people who cannot entirely afford private insurance, this bill would provide assistance for those people to purchase it. In many states, private insurance also covers abortion. In some states, insurance companies must cover for abortion with certain types of policies. Stupak’s amendment would not allow for that assistance to be used for policies that also cover abortion. Just the same, insurance companies pool from their entire customer base, so the government would be indirectly funding abortion either way. Stupak’s amendment creates some problems, making if difficult for some people in some states to purchase insurance and creating a regulatory headache for insurance companies who receive the assistance money but also have abortion coverage in other policies they offer.

The Stupak amendment does not secure the status quo. The Hyde Amendment, as it stands now, does. The Stupak amendment creates a new environment. And as I said, if the government offers assistance to purchase private insurance, then in many states we’ll be indirectly funding abortion with or without it. The fear here is that if the Stupak language is later litigated, the ability of women to get insurance for abortion could be severly limited. So it is Stupak, not Boxer and Pelosi, who is shoving his sleazy, stupid, backwards, misogynistic, retarded “principle” on everyone else. Not the other way around.

JMJ

Yeah, memories of getting your butt whipped, must be hard, you’ll eventually grow up.. get past it

JMJ

JMJ

Prior to last Obama’s victory, I asked several employees of local
markets, ( mainly minority but not all ), who they were voting for.
To a man (and woman) they answerd Obama.

When asked “why”, they responded, “because he will make the country
better”.

A close friend of mine, asked the same question, answered that
McCain will legalize illegals, all 11m of them.

A relative answered that the Democrats offer far more in services that
the Republicans (this is in a city that is bankrupt).
When asked about who will pay for all of this, he responded, “the rich”.

No matter how you slice it, 31% of the pie may suffice for one meal
or someone on a diet, but NOT to win elections.

Every pundit and expert now writing about Obama that I see on the Net,
say the same thing..there were high expectations from him, none
of which have been fulfilled.

I call the Democrats the party of promises, promises, promises.

Now we learn that Mr. Dodd, Conn., is backing off his original view
of writing new laws pertaining to consumer protection. An independent
agency won’t be formed, but attached to the Federal Reserve, the
bank having veto power. Duh.

While Eric goes traveling to Republican women’s groups, Id prefer
he spend more time with my people, and other minorities. It is they
who will decide California’s election. Had New Yorkers and Californianis
voted more heavily for McCain/Palin…our ally in the M.E. would not
know be bashing itself in the head for announcing plans to build 1600 units for Orthodox Jews in 4 years.

I think Mrs. Palin would have used common sense and just said,
“Look guys, it’s your problemo, you sit down and hash things out. It’s to your children’s benefit, or do you want to continue fighting one another
for another 100 years?”. “So long as Arabs and Israelis build in Jerusalem,
so what.”" Maybe, living side by side should start THERE as a portent of
a future Palestinian second state (Jordan is the real Palestine) and it’s reality”.

If I were Avi David, I would harp on this Biden/Obama/Hillary fiasco to my constituents and defeat Mr. Waxman. That district really does need
CHANGE.

JMJ

What they don’t understand is that we Republicans are only 31% of
registered voters in the state.

We have to pick up substantial amounts of others, to win the
governorship or senate for that matter.

The Republicans have been portrayed as the party of the well-heeled
and corporate interests. The Democrats tell us that they are for Joe
Sixpack, the average guy on the street.

In a state like California (very blue) this line sells.

It’s about numbers guys…and I’m afraid we still don’t have it.
But, we must never give up, our state and nations future is at stake.

Thanks much.

I used to watch boxing, but it just isn’t the same anymore. It’s not the “gentlemen’s sport” it once was. That martial arts “ultimate fighting” stuff is just plain nasty. I can’t stomache it. It must be pretty fake too, because people don’t just “walk” away from fights like that. In real life, a bare-fisted all-out fight between two expert pugilists would end in about 5 seconds and there’s a good chance someone would die. Heck, most fights I’ve seen or been involved with ended in the first punch. Watching two men beat each other is gay and sociopathic. In the end, it’s the Colleseum all over again. I think it’s a sign of a society in decline. Sorry, Micky, but that kind of fighting is just plain primitive, animalistic nastiness for the entertainment of rabble.

Football has it all. It’s real (that’s why they wear all those pads, lest they’d be killing each other on every play too). It’s a true team sport, requiring selfless dedication to the unit. It’s heady and requires deep strategy, like a living game of chess. It requires tremendous atheleticism (many football players are also dancers, martial artists, basketball, baseball, tennis, golf players, you name it). It requires a vast array of different skill sets for different positions. It’s like a wargame. I can’t imagine not loving football!

Didn’t you play football when you were a kid? Even just with your freinds in a lot? Those are some of my fondest memories from growing up. Heck, I kept playing until I was 25 years old! The last thing I want to remember is violent fights. That just brings back memories of sleazy hicks brawling in the school yard.

JMJ