See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On January 26th, 2009 at 11:35 pm, Flyoverman said:

   “That’s not the pack of condoms I knew.”

2. #2
   On January 26th, 2009 at 11:36 pm, torabora said:

   What are the condom manufacturers supposed to do? Just stand there and go bankrupt?

   I think not….

   Paging Jocelyn Elders, Jocelyn Elders to the halls of Congress please.

   Meanwhile in wombs across America, little fetal fingers are crossed….

3. #3
   On January 26th, 2009 at 11:40 pm, genso said:

   It’s kinda like gun control anyway. The people that actually need the government to supply them won’t use them and those that are responsible before and after the fact (if need be) don’t need the government to supply them.

4. #4
   On January 26th, 2009 at 11:45 pm, joetimek said:

   I’m going to err on the side of caution and resist the urge to make explicit sexual jokes about this whole…debacle.

5. #5
   On January 26th, 2009 at 11:49 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

   Half a billion here, half a billion there, and before you know it we’ll only be adding an even trillion or so extra to the deficit…

6. #6
   On January 26th, 2009 at 11:51 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

   Think Progress is in such a snit they can’t even spell their URL’s right…

   http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/26/obama-family-palnning/

7. #7
   On January 27th, 2009 at 12:02 am, Wellsy said:

   Credit is due, and we owe it to Obama, whatever the reason, to smacking down this crap. I’m guessing the war room folks saw the potental fallout and said, “We don’t need this” one week into a new administration.

   Kind of contrasts with that “I won” BS from last week, doesn’t it? Telling Republicans to shut up since the electorate is behind him didn’t negate the fact he still needs them for this still-suspect spending bill.

   I’m also curious to see what he’ll say in his first official interview to Al-Arabiya. Oh, how MSNBC and WaPo must hate that coup.

8. #8
   On January 27th, 2009 at 12:03 am, fmfnavydoc said:

   This get you wondering who is really running government right now…Barry or Nan. This round goes to the messiah…

   Wonder if the Catholic Church is gonna take her to task for her agenda?

9. #9
   On January 27th, 2009 at 12:04 am, steveegg said:

   The smart money is that this will go back in when the Generational Theft Act goes to conference. After all, abortion is what unites the Left (that, and undying hatred of those that don’t give them 110% fealty).

10. #10
    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:07 am, Wellsy said:

    Also, this does leave Pelosi with some egg on the face after her publicized defense of the addition followed by Obama’s personal admonition that the language be dropped. Cause of friction between a newbie President and a seasoned Speaker for the direction of the party and nation? We’ll see.

11. #11
    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:15 am, dpt said:

    This is good news if it holds. Seems that this was an attempt to bailout Planned Parenthood because they lost money with Bernie Madoff:

    Report: Planned Parenthood layoffs tied to Madoff scam
    BY NEIL NAGRAJ
    DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
    Tuesday, January 13th 2009, 7:37 AM

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ …ffs_tied_t.html

12. #12
    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:25 am, xler8bmw said:

    It’s not going away. He wants it but, it in the light of day now. He will sneak it in on another bill on a late Friday afternoon!

    DON’T BE FOOLED BY THIS GUY!

13. #13
    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:38 am, mattymatt10 said:

    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:25 am, xler8bmw said:
    It’s not going away. He wants it but, it in the light of day now. He will sneak it in on another bill on a late Friday afternoon!

    I think you’re on to something there. Libs never give up. How many battles do we have to fight over and over and over? Gay marriage, amnesty, SCHIP, more that I can’t think of right now, etc etc.

    It’ll get included one way or another. These people are relentless.

14. #14
    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:43 am, xler8bmw said:

    Maybe if we had some repub senators with a pair we wouldn’t be fighting so hard.

    Remember Obama and Nan said they won wait till we win again (Wishful thinking)

    Funny thing go read Timmy’s resume’ his father was a good friend of Obama’s MOM! HHHHMMM I thought he wanted to get rid of old DC politics!

15. #15
    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:46 am, ajmontana said:

    San Fran Nan was unavailable for comment.

    Oh I imagine she will be, her and Tommy Boy Reid can’t keep their traps shut.
    It’s going to be fun to hear her whine and spin this not to sound off on “the one”

16. #16
    On January 27th, 2009 at 1:47 am, Micheleeroo said:

    It was quite amusing to hear a woman with FIVE CHILDREN

17. #17
    On January 27th, 2009 at 1:48 am, Micheleeroo said:

    whoops, pushed ‘submit comment’ too soon–

    anyway, it was quite amusing to hear a woman with FIVE CHILDREN tell the world that we’d be better off with fewer people being born!

18. #18
    On January 27th, 2009 at 2:01 am, Jaded said:

    Well it is nice to know the party of the Grim Reaper is still at work. I KNOW with certainty there is a special place in hell for them and Nancy Pelosi will be the ghoul they will suffer for an eternity looking at because I know its hell for me now!

19. #19
    On January 27th, 2009 at 3:02 am, love2rumba said:

    Paging Jocelyn Elders, Jocelyn Elders to the halls of Congress please.

    Wasn’t she the dimbulb who wanted “safer bullets” to be sold back in the ’90s?

20. #20
    On January 27th, 2009 at 5:33 am, graysonret said:

    I suppose Pelosi’s eventual goal of mandatory abortion and 1 child per family, is on hold for now. Well, I’m sure she’ll find some way of attaching her pet projects to some bill, buried with the rest of the pork.

21. #21
    On January 27th, 2009 at 5:49 am, BuckeyeSam said:

    On January 26th, 2009 at 11:40 pm, genso said:
    It’s kinda like gun control anyway. The people that actually need the government to supply them won’t use them and those that are responsible before and after the fact (if need be) don’t need the government to supply them.

    This was very well put.

    I’m not sure I saw this mentioned above, but last night I saw a clip of Pelosi’s interview with Georgie S. on TV at least three times. And she looked absolutely idiotic trying to justify this part of the bill as an effort to help states “cut costs.” You could see it in her words, facial expressions, and body language: “George, you have me here. But I have to give you some hokey explanation to justify this unjustifiable waste of taxpayer money for a pet constituency of mine.”

22. #22
    On January 27th, 2009 at 6:19 am, zorro said:

    I still can’t figure out what the heck she was thinking in the first place! It must be something in the water over there.

23. #23
    On January 27th, 2009 at 7:30 am, tpitman said:

    On January 27th, 2009 at 1:47 am, Micheleeroo said:

    It was quite amusing to hear a woman PUNISHED with FIVE CHILDREN

    I watched a clip of the interview with Stephanopolous and I just can’t believe Obama would strike this critical stimulus package component, especially after her impassioned, informed and concise detailing of the magnitude of impact it would have in turning around the faltering economy.

24. #24
    On January 27th, 2009 at 7:32 am, ErinF said:

    Throw scrawny Nancy under the bus too. She’ll break like a twig and we won’t even feel a bump.

25. #25
    On January 27th, 2009 at 7:34 am, FamilyMan said:

    “The stimulus bill also contains a sizable number of tax cuts aimed at businesses that are meant to court reluctant conservatives into supporting the bill.”

    Reluctant conservatives are not need for the passage of this bill. The fact is folks, is they what political cover ,because they know it will cause financial havoc.

26. #26
    On January 27th, 2009 at 7:34 am, tpitman said:

    “George, you have me here. But I have to give you some hokey explanation to justify this unjustifiable waste of taxpayer money for a pet constituency of mine.”

    Better yet, “George, I’ll pretend to try and baffle ‘em with bullsh!t and you pretend to be buying it.”

27. #27
    On January 27th, 2009 at 7:37 am, FamilyMan said:

    Remember Nancy is third in line for the presidency.
    GAG!

28. #28
    On January 27th, 2009 at 7:41 am, bluesoc said:

    This is the least offensive part of the entire bill. It does not create any new spending, but simply streamlines spending that already exists. If it wasn’t for the fact that it’s contraceptives, no one would be upset.

29. #29
    On January 27th, 2009 at 7:58 am, FamilyMan said:

    GEE!
    How much does a condom cost anyway?

30. #30
    On January 27th, 2009 at 8:01 am, tarpon said:

    I think botox is a repellent for rational thought.

    There is no stimulus in the porkalosa payoff bill to Democrat voters.

31. #31
    On January 27th, 2009 at 8:03 am, FamilyMan said:

    likely to jettison family planning

    Why the hell does anyone need the government to plan their family? Do we have that many idiots in this country?
    GEEEESS!

32. #32
    On January 27th, 2009 at 8:08 am, ThatSamIAm said:

    Poor Nancy. Can it be that a vast majority of people do not think murdering the unborn is a good way of saving money?

    Why doesn’t Nancy tax all the Hollywood elite to raise money? They have money. She wants money. Tax them. Same goes for Governor Arnold. Tax Hollywood and leave veterans and children alone.

33. #33
    On January 27th, 2009 at 8:12 am, FlyingTigress said:

    anyway, it was quite amusing to hear a woman with FIVE CHILDREN tell the world that we’d be better off with fewer people being born!

    I’ll one-up, you. It’s depressing to BE the fifth child of a woman who went on to be a director of a family-planning clinic in central L.A. (i.e. serving East L.A. and South Central L.A. — those of you who live in L.A. know which ethnic groups reside in those two areas), and to hear her eventually move on to advocate introducing contraceptive chemicals into the domestic water supplies if ‘those people’ couldn’t keep from getting pregnant.

    True story.

    But, it did convince me — at, perhaps, an earlier age than I would have, otherwise, of the moral bankruptcy of the left.

34. #34
    On January 27th, 2009 at 8:15 am, FlyingTigress said:

    My guess? With “Mommie Dearest” and SanFran Nan — it is guilt. The great liberal motivator.

    They can’t undo what makes them feel guilty, so they force it through by any means possible.

35. #35
    On January 27th, 2009 at 8:16 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Nancy Pelosi really became unhinged when security prevented her from entering the House floor without first showing some IUD.

36. #36
    On January 27th, 2009 at 8:20 am, FamilyMan said:

    Rogue said; first showing some IUD.

    Thanks! I am now wiping the coffee off may monitor.

37. #37
    On January 27th, 2009 at 8:27 am, Bicyea said:

    WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC

    Nancy’s stimulus poster.

    WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC

38. #38
    On January 27th, 2009 at 8:31 am, FamilyMan said:

    Pelosi wants contraceptives, yet has five children.
    Pelosi wants hand gun controls, yet is licensed in california to have one herself.
    IS THERE A PATTERN HERE?

39. #39
    On January 27th, 2009 at 8:37 am, FamilyMan said:

    Bicyea said:
    WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC

    I see no difference in this form of family planning.
    http://bettman.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/dachau.jpg

40. #40
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:02 am, englishqueen01 said:

    Pelosi wants contraceptives, yet has five children.
    Pelosi wants hand gun controls, yet is licensed in california to have one herself.

    Yeah. In the olden days, we would call this “hypocrisy.”

    But, my husband – who’s always rather right about this things – observed Pelosi/Obama’s brand of politics is actually a form of elitism, wearing a cloak of socialism.

41. #41
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am, jangar said:

    Mental gymnastics trying to tie global warming, population control, genocide and stimulus together.

    When does she melt down and explode?

42. #42
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:11 am, granite said:

    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:02 am, englishqueen01 said:

    Pelosi wants contraceptives, yet has five children.
    Pelosi wants hand gun controls, yet is licensed in california to have one herself.

    Yeah. In the olden days, we would call this “hypocrisy.”

    Exactly.

    But, my husband – who’s always rather right about this things – observed Pelosi/Obama’s brand of politics is actually a form of elitism, wearing a cloak of socialism.

    You beat me to it.
    Double exactly.

43. #43
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:11 am, FamilyMan said:

    englishqueen01 said: brand of politics is actually a form of elitism

    EQ
    I think elitism eventually breaks down to become an Oligarchy.

44. #44
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:12 am, md1964 said:

    When I look at the ignorant people in our Congress and Senate, I shutter to think of what they would do in the real world.

    Can you imagine Pelosi, Reid and for heavens sake Biden in charge of anything that required Real Results and Accountability??? We have the Dumbest people this country has to offer, spending a lifetime in our Gov’t!!!

45. #45
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:18 am, sonofdy said:

    Is this where we are going next????

46. #46
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:19 am, ErinF said:

    Gawd, she’s ugly!

47. #47
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:20 am, RedDog said:

    Nan the eugenicist, remaking society one dead minority baby at a time.

48. #48
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:24 am, sonofdy said:

    I still can’t believe that obama thinks that in a time of economic troubles, one of the first things he needs to do is pay for abortions in Mexico.

    DEE DEE DEE….

49. #49
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:26 am, Socky said:

    San Fran Nan was unavailable for comment.

    She had too many Botox injections and her face locked up.

50. #50
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:27 am, Kwill said:

    Nothing embodies “too big to fail” like the contraception industry. Guffaw.

51. #51
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:27 am, FamilyMan said:

    My personal favorite Obama quote.
    “No one is pro-abortion”.

52. #52
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am, FamilyMan said:

    Opps!! Wrong thread
    sorry

53. #53
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am, Socky said:

    To hear her eventually move on to advocate introducing contraceptive chemicals into the domestic water supplies if ‘those people’ couldn’t keep from getting pregnant.

    Every discussion I’ve ever had with a leftist on abortion will sooner or later include the lefty making the argument that abortion keeps down the population of “those people.”

54. #54
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:30 am, Socky said:

    My personal favorite Obama quote. “No one is pro-abortion”.
    

    That’s like saying “No one is pro-child molesting.” The difference is, you don’t have armies of politicians and activists striving to keep child molestation “safe, legal, and rare.”

55. #55
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    The left-wing blogs are having a snit fit.

    This is good. I too believe Pelosi’s Murder a Child Act will be back-and I really doubt ANYONE thought it was only about contraception- but watching Lefties have a snit fit is good.

    Being one of “those people” I do resent the argument-Life not worthy of life Dear Nan?

56. #56
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:42 am, englishqueen01 said:

    This is good. I too believe Pelosi’s Murder a Child Act will be back-and I really doubt ANYONE thought it was only about contraception- but watching Lefties have a snit fit is good.

    Because “reproductive freedom” to them means that they can have sex with whomever, whatever, whenever and wherever they please. Without consequence.

    However, in my encounters with liberals, every single one of them dislikes women like, say, Michelle Duggar, who expresses her reproductive freedom by having a big family. The Duggars are “too extreme”, etc., etc.

    And this

    To hear her eventually move on to advocate introducing contraceptive chemicals into the domestic water supplies if ‘those people’ couldn’t keep from getting pregnant.

    reaffirms my wholehearted belief that Humane Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on contraception and sexuality was prophetic. To paraphrase, it predicted

    …a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments

    A scant 40 years later (the encyclical was published in 1968), every one of those predictions has come true.

    The fourth mostly in places like China, but it’s clear there are murmurings of population control, forced abortion/sterilization, etc. in circles (see: environmental nuts, Pelosi, et al).

57. #57
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:43 am, granite said:

    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Being one of “those people” I do resent the argument-Life not worthy of life Dear Nan?

    Well said.

58. #58
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am, dfern said:

    It’s kinda like gun control anyway. The people that actually need the government to supply them won’t use them and those that are responsible before and after the fact (if need be) don’t need the government to supply them.

    BINGO!!!!!

59. #59
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:49 am, FamilyMan said:

    “No one is pro-abortion”.
    What is the really meaning by that quote?
    Are we holding a gun at the a women and the doctor to perform abortions?
    NO
    He is rejecting the sanctity of human life.
    What he is saying is that the laws of man rule above the laws of GOD. This is counter to the fundamentals of our constitution.

60. #60
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:52 am, FamilyMan said:

    englishqueen01 said:
    Because “reproductive freedom” to them means that they can have sex with whomever, whatever, whenever and wherever they please. Without consequence

    Exactly

61. #61
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:53 am, PKAmmoTroop said:

    I’ll believe there’s a “Spirit of Bi-partisanship” when I see Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd being frog marched out of the capitol in straight jackets and leg irons.

62. #62
    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:55 am, Tagwife said:

    Pelosi’s argument seems to be fewer births less money we have to spend on caring for them..makes one wonder who she is going after next? The elderly and infirm??? *shudders* As others have mentioned..is this where we are going? No life is sacred?

63. #63
    On January 27th, 2009 at 10:01 am, granite said:

    On January 27th, 2009 at 9:55 am, Tagwife said:

    Pelosi’s argument seems to be fewer births less money we have to spend on caring for them..makes one wonder who she is going after next? The elderly and infirm??? *shudders* As others have mentioned..is this where we are going? No life is sacred?

    Exactly.
    Life is not sacred to the socialists/statists/existentialists/opposite worldview-holders/nihilists.
    Nothing is sacred to them.
    They mock, ridicule, and recoil from the concept of sacredness.

    To them, life is simply biochemical and neurochemical reactions…nothing more.
    There is no soul.
    There is no good nor evil.
    There is just money, sex and power; which means, for them, there is just…nothing.

64. #64
    On January 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am, sonofdy said:

    The left-wing blogs are having a snit fit.

    Poor babies.

65. #65
    On January 27th, 2009 at 10:26 am, maisy said:

    San Fran Nan may be right in one way…What do you want to bet that the mother who gave birth to eight children..(octuplets) is an illegal alien????
    Why else would they withhold her name?
    But we don’t mind supporting them…heck CAlifornia is a free for all state…..and nowObama plans to bail out all the free spending states ….wanna bet they become even more irresponsible as a result???

66. #66
    On January 27th, 2009 at 10:30 am, moc23 said:

    Well, it’s all about their life.

67. #67
    On January 27th, 2009 at 10:33 am, englishqueen01 said:

    San Fran Nan may be right in one way…What do you want to bet that the mother who gave birth to eight children..(octuplets) is an illegal alien????

    Why else would they withhold her name?

    They might be withholding her name because of privacy laws and in the interest of protecting extended family from the media.

    Heck, I’m next to nothing on the fame totem pole but I wouldn’t want the whole world knowing if I had octuplets. In fact, medical staff at the hospital said it wasn’t wise to put a “Welcome home, baby” sign on our apartment because it might attract attention (never told them we announced it on our blog, but whatever…).

    The answer to the problem of illegal immigration, and our economic situation, is not to sacrifice children to Moloch.

68. #68
    On January 27th, 2009 at 10:37 am, battleaxe said:

    Whenever Pelosi says “It’s for the children”, she should be pelted with those little plastic babies that come in Mardi Gras King Cakes.

69. #69
    On January 27th, 2009 at 10:41 am, CleanGuy said:

    You mean we have a president who is watching the polls and responding to them even more quickly than Clinton did? What a tiring four years this is going to be…

70. #70
    On January 27th, 2009 at 10:50 am, Storm Chaser said:

    Mark Steyn wrote in “America Alone” that Muslims will ultimately win because of their higher birth rate. The United States has a chance because red state people and especially immigrants are reproducing relatively rapidly.

    Nancy Pelosi reinforces my perception of her as a dangerous fool. Baby boomers are beginning to collect Social Security. Who will pay the bills if we don’t have a large supply of young workers? The Russians have had holidays and offer gifts to couples who have children. Italians and Japanese are considering the same.

71. #71
    On January 27th, 2009 at 10:50 am, txvet2 said:

    The provision has emerged as a point of contention among Republicans, who criticize it as an example of wasteful spending that would neither create jobs nor otherwise improve the economy.

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this was sacrificed for the moment just to disarm Republican critics of the bill. If they are narrowly focused on single provisions rather than the entire concept of the bailout/stimulus/pork bill, they’ll soon find themselves running out of reasons not to support it, and give the Democrats the political cover they are so obviously craving. The much heralded meeting with the monument to affirmative action run amok is first and foremost to give them that political cover come 2010. Of course, they already are pretty much disarmed thanks to Bush the Stupid Socialist.

72. #72
    On January 27th, 2009 at 11:02 am, 84_cavy said:

    Jeez…isn’t her face the best contraception out there? Posting her face all over this site is a real downer.

73. #73
    On January 27th, 2009 at 11:09 am, Cosmo said:

    Wow. I went to that ThinkProgress link. It’s nice to know hatred has a URL. Apparently 53% is a mandate. Kind of like Congress got in 2006. Which they promptly misunderstood and translated into a <12% approval rating.

    Heh.

74. #74
    On January 27th, 2009 at 11:14 am, RogerCfromSD said:

    It’s ironic that the Babykillers on the Left love to call our military “babykillers.”

75. #75
    On January 27th, 2009 at 11:22 am, Paul said:

    Publicly exposing the waste in the scam is the best way to make the Democrats bleed.

    I hope Boehner and the boys slash Pelosi, Reid and Obamachev to ribbons.

76. #76
    On January 27th, 2009 at 11:27 am, Regulus said:

    Only $800 billion more in needless, unstimulating stimulus spending to kill.

    Any takers on how long it’ll be before lefties use this as a way of blaming Republican intransigence for “budget cuts”?

77. #77
    On January 27th, 2009 at 11:27 am, DBNinKY said:

    The left-wing blogs are having a snit fit.

    Oh how disillusionment hurts! Glad to see it happen to the Left side for a change.

78. #78
    On January 27th, 2009 at 11:32 am, StacyH said:

    So let me get this straight .. Obama takes out a spending provision from a supposed “stimulus bill” and the left goes nuts?

    Spending bills are for the fall. This type of thing should not be happening now AT ALL.

79. #79
    On January 27th, 2009 at 11:58 am, NBF said:

    …but I won’t hold my breath waiting for Barack Obortion to stop directing scarce taxpayer dollars to kill tots in the womb around the world.

80. #80
    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pm, DerKrieger said:

    Here’s the irony of Nan’s Plan: The Liberals support massive government spending on the poor, WIC, SCHIP, Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, free lunch programs, etc. When the poor respond to these incentives by having children they otherwise couldn’t afford, the Libs want to offer them “family planning services”, aka abortions to relieve themselves of the burden of the children they had no disincentives not to have.
    Prosperity results in smaller families. Subsidies result in larger ones. If the Libs want to encourage the poor to have fewer children and save a bunch of money then they ought to end all programs for the poor.

81. #81
    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm, denver republican said:

    The fact that a blog entry of Michelle’s is appropriately tagged with both “Abortion” and “Fiscal Stimulus” shows just how loony our politics have become.

82. #82
    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm, sbw999 said:

    I’ve always been surprised that Dems are so pro-abortion, since (I would venture to guess) about 90% of aborted fetuses would grow up to be reliable democrat votes.

83. #83
    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm, wighttrasch said:

    Wow–over 80 comments & no lgm?! What gives…?

84. #84
    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:42 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    “It’s ALL for the children.” Uh, right, is it for the children that are conceived or are not conceived? Or is it for the children that not murdered in the womb or for the 1.2 million a year?

    Either way, SAN FRAN NAN is doing it all for the children…

85. #85
    On January 27th, 2009 at 1:00 pm, b-cat said:

    The left-wing blogs are having a snit fit.

    Isn’t that a given?

86. #86
    On January 27th, 2009 at 1:11 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Let’s try that post again…

    “It’s ALL for the children.”

    Uh, right. Is it for the children that are conceived or those that are not conceived? Or is it for the children that not murdered in the womb or for the 1.2 million babies a year that are murdered in the womb, largely for profit, by Planned Parenthood?

    Either way, SAN FRAN NAN is doing it all for the children…

87. #87
    On January 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    The Democrats who described the likely reversal did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to disclose developments not yet made public.

    HAHAHHAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    Your Democrats are cowards.

    /dimocrap translator on

    I don’t want to have an opinion – ever. I really don’t want to have an opinion if the left-wing nut jobs who voted to let me keep my job will be PO’ed at me.

    /off

88. #88
    On January 27th, 2009 at 1:20 pm, FilmLadd said:

    On January 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm, wighttrasch said:

    Wow–over 80 comments & no lgm?! What gives…?

    Yes, I am disappointed. I wanted to give the conservative-atheist point of view on the whole thing and make smoke pour out of his ears.

89. #89
    On January 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pm, PaKeystoner said:

    Now it’s time to go after the money for ACORN! It doesn’t belong in the bill either.

90. #90
    On January 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm, CJ said:

    I can see a certain diabolical leftist logic in funding contraception through the “economic stimulus” package. After all, it won’t be a “Generational Theft Act” if there is no future generation to inherit the debt.

91. #91
    On January 27th, 2009 at 3:09 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    No, CJ, you overlooked the obvious. The crooks in Congress will import a whole new generation from elsewhere and continue to hold them in bondage to the state. In other words, the leftists will become the new plantation managers in a “brave new world” where they rule over peasants who never knew anything about the great nation that was America.

    On January 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm, CJ said:
    I can see a certain diabolical leftist logic in funding contraception through the “economic stimulus” package. After all, it won’t be a “Generational Theft Act” if there is no future generation to inherit the debt.

92. #92
    On January 27th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, CJ said:

    The crooks in Congress will import a whole new generation from elsewhere

    From where? Don’t forget, Obama is going to finance abortions in other countries.

    See, we can be as irresponsible as we want. Except for the climate change stuff. Gotta go green ‘cuz we can’t destroy the planet for the cockroaches who will inherit.

93. #93
    On January 27th, 2009 at 6:21 pm, Freddy said:

    Seems to me that this is actually about San Francisco cash values. With a 9 to 1 federal kickback, this measure was going to plow a lot of cash into the SF medical system. All SF would need to do is to DROP existing coverage by a factor of 10, and they would still have the same amount of cash for the program as they use today. Meantime, they could take the rest of the money from this cash cow and plow it into something usefull, like the free health care that the mayor has promised.

    This is all about Nancy Pelosi handing a lot of cash to another democrat. In this case, a pathetic mayor that dreams of being governor.