Comments by stockadian
Posted on March 16 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The point that muggy leaves out is that there will be 30 million new customers of health care, and that will be great for all aspects of the health care field, including the medical device companies. All of these formerly uninsured people suddenly having insurance means that they should be willing do do a little bit in order to make it happen. And it's not just medical device companies. Hospitals will do better because now they will not have uncompensated care in emergency rooms. Same thing for doctors. These people are doing really well already, and now they are going to have 30 million more customers. Finally, nobody should go bankrupt when they get sick in this country.
And muggy, when you quote someone, (using quotation marks) it behooves you to state the exact quote.
Posted on March 4 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no such medical procedure called "partial-birth abortion," a term coined by the National Right to Life Committee in 1995, and Dr. Arthur Salvatore, you should know that. As a physician, shouldn't you at least use the proper medical term, "dilation and evacuation" and also tell us that such a procedure is used in about 2 in 1000 abortions in the USA, and only in extreme cases where there is an extremely damaged or deformed fetus, or the health of the mother is at grave risk? If you don't like abortion, and do not want to perform abortions, then please, have nothing to do with abortion. However, you also must realize that if you and your band of anti-choice friends were somehow able change the law in this great nation, you would only end legal and safe abortions. The middle class and the rich would still find ways to safely get the procedure, perhaps by traveling to Canada or Europe. The poor would be returned to the alley ways of yesterday.
Posted on March 2 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Janesjoy, you have to forgive our friends on the right. Look at their lack of maturity. Their blatant name calling is significant to understand them. When was the last time you or I changed someone's name into an aberration of their name the way Phils2008 does above with his reference to the President of the United States as "Obuma"? For me, I think it was seventh grade. And describing highly intelligent news organizations that he happens to disagree with as "idiots" is funny. Of course all lefties like you and me are "narrow-minded" according Phils2008. But apparently, sometimes, our right wing friends eventually get caught in their overt name calling and cross a line, as happened a day or two ago to Wmarincic, when apparently the staff of the Gazette judged what ever comment he made to be over the top and deleted it. (Thank you)
Janesjoy. Keep commenting. I enjoy reading your thoughts.
Posted on February 28 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the wmarancic, your use of the phrase, "the short bus" is not veiled enough. You should be ashamed!
Posted on February 28 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Really grow weary of people like you, Albright, and your lap dogs, Wmaarincic, and Muggy changing words, reports, misquoting others, etc. along with the name calling. But thank you for the source, by the way. No where in your source does Bob Woodward use the word "threatened" as does Muggy. He says the words that later the emails confirm….that he would regret doing this. The emails then explain what he meant. The quote from the email is "I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim." And how did Woodward's email answer that? "I also welcome your personal advice" Now show me where there is a THREAT there, or even in the source you have sent me to prove that I owe Muggy an apology.
Grow up. Your little network of attack dogs need to learn to use sources to your advantage and stop acting like middle school children.
Posted on February 28 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Albright1, If Muggy can quote for me (real quotes, and sources) where Bob Woodward stated he had been "threatened" and is now retracting his words about being threatened, by publishing the actual emails, I will issue an apology to Muggy. But it is more likely that Muggy, like others on the right, jumped on the band wagon to use any little tidbit to find criticism of the White House before all the facts were in. If that is indeed the case, Muggy owes the readers of these letters an apology.
Posted on February 28 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Muggy. It is a shame that you have so misrepresented the facts over the Bob Woodward story. No he was not threatened. If you would simply read the actually email exchanges, you would see that there was no threat and Mr. Woodward, who is a fine journalist also says there was none. Why those on the right, who will do anything at all, even create falsehoods to discredit the White House do so, is way beyond me.
Here are the actual quotes from the emails:
From Sperling to Woodward.....I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad.......I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues
From Woodward to Sperling:You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob
What does the RIGHT WING do with that? Call it a treat? Even though Mr. Woodword says he welcomes Mr. Sperling's advice? Amazing what has happened to intelligence in this country. Learn to read the facts before telling us what you think happened, Muggy.
Posted on February 26 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly states: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
It is a quirk of the English language that there is no easy word to distinguish Senators from House of Representative members, sometimes called Representatives. So the term Congressmen AND Congresswomen has taken over that position, and is sometimes used rather than Representative. That, however, does not change the Constitution of the United States, and I do hope that you are not suggesting otherwise. Those ARE the facts, FrankLowe. Please read the Constitution.
Posted on February 26 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is NOT fairly common to refer to our legislative branch as Congress and Senate, Phils 2008, because it is incorrect. It is much more common and correct to refer to our Congress as the House, or House of Representatives and the Senate. And yes, you had several punctuation errors, including missing capital letters, missing apostrophes, and missing commas. Such errors would be forgivable if the person making them was not so self assured and pompous in his opinions that he was an expert with so much to teach us about our government and how it should run, or about math, and logic, as you seem to be.
Wmarinic, If you know that there of two houses of Congress, (looks more like you used Wikipedia rather than actually "know" as you claim, as your definitions are much too clean), why did you revert back to your error, and again say Senate and Congress in your third sentence, when you apparently stopped using quotes from your hastily used reference work? You, like Phils2008 have every right to have any opinion of me, of liberals, of government, of The President that you wish. But as the late, great Senator from NY, Daniel Patrick Moynihan had once said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." Both you, Wmarinic and Phils2008 need to be reminded of that.
Posted on February 25 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wmarincic. The Senate is a part of Congress, or didn't you know that? To say that "those wars were passed by the Democrat Senate and Congress" makes no sense.