EDIT: Oh BTW I noticed you hadn't responded to my question for you on that other thread so I'll repost it here:

Why do you think the average tax payer should be required to fund an irresponsible act by a person they don't even know, just because they can't afford insurance?

If by society, you mean government, then someone must, at some point, determine who is “worthy” or “unworthy” (qualified) to receive government payments. If by society you mean people receiving charity or earning their own money, I didn't him, or anyone else, attempt to take that away.

Although English is not my native language, I believe that I know what “impugn” means.”

“Impugn” went with “my motives”

The (“misrepresentation)” was a reference to Mr. Smith's post.

Sorry I confused you

All sarcasm aside, Leo, you've already shown your true colors on this issue. Backpedaling, couching your hatefulness in talk of “responsibility” won't work for anyone who remembers your rants on the subject, previously. It was ugly, and it was the real you.

No need to impugn (“misrepresentation”)

Minor quibble. Impugn does not mean to misrepresent; it means to to challenge as false.

1. No need to impugn (“misrepresentation”) a person's motives because he or she doesn't read alll your sublime comments on other threads.

I do no such thing, I only sought to clarify for you. I honestly never thought that anyone would suggest that another member of these boards might consider an act of rape to be a voluntary act of the victim. You implied that this may have been my view, it most certainly was not. Rather than overreact at this implication, I simply directed you to the other thread to clarify. I accept your respectful disagreement, but I do not accept a misrepresentation of my views that you implied in your post.

Not necessary, AR

Of course not. But fun!

Mr. Smith:

1. No need to impugn (“misrepresentation”) a person's motives because he or she doesn't read alll your sublime comments on other threads.

2. I don't need nor accept your “I'll excuse this….”

3. Notwithstanding your eloquent “Billy Jim Bob was mighty charming after she had 6 beers and changing her mind in the morning.” I respectfully but totally disagree with your views on this issue.

Thank you.

Dorian de Wind

Watching it twice (once live, and once from the video in the post, although that video was cut up quite a bit) was enough for me, thank you.:) In any case, you make my point. The Republicans did have a valid objection and some valid questions about the process. However, it was not their place to decide what the Democrats could do once the chair had ruled. The chair had ruled on the question, and also made clear that his intention was to be fair to both sides (implying that whatever time imbalance the Republicans perceived would be accounted for), and yet they continued to object, which it seems to me goes too far. On the other hand, once John Dingell made clear to the Democrats that their statements were being counted against their debate time, the Republican objection subsided and things started rolling again.

It seems to me this whole thing in being blown out of proportion, by both sides. The Republicans had a valid objection at least at the beginning. Yes, they went too far but this is hardly the first time the house has gotten unruly. On the other side, it seems to me that Dingell handled it as well as could be expected and he attempted to be fair to both sides. Maybe he could have explained sooner that the Democrats were being penalized, but the end result seemed fair to me.

(Also, in the end, the debate was extended, although not as a result of this incident)

The House lib Dem menagerie has been the major story this entire year, but that doesn't mean that the Senate will be free of foolishness. If fringists push the abortion issue, and reverse sexism is attractive in the Senate, too, it wouldn't be surprising, for example, to see either of the dim bulbs from the State of Washington, Maria Cantwell or Patty Murray, play the role, if not, say, someone like Barbara Boxer of California (currently notorious for Senate “climate” legislative extremism-related foolishness).

At least the more foolish, evasive, dishonest, or cowardly (FEDC) typical lefties didn't call it “choice” [sic].

Capps, whose amendment I posted links to in the past several weeks if not multiple months, and whose language Stupak corrected with better language in his amendment, was as blatantly hypocritical as some lefties on this site, when she crititized the Stupak amendment:

“Comprehensive health insurance reform legislation is not the place to be re-debating federal abortion policy, nor is it the place to dramatically expand or contract access to abortion services.”

Grow up, lefties, cease the more extreme, mentally-ill agitation, and concentrate on retention of the public option, in any form, in the Senate legislation prior to the conference with the House. [sigh]

I'm surprised Nancy Pelosi didn't re-define “children” above age 27, so as to include more lefties.

Grow up.