Share This Page

Verbatim

| Saturday, April 6, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

“States that extend Medicaid coverage to adults whose income is up to 138 percent of the poverty line will get the federal government to pick up the added costs — for the first three years. After that, the feds promise to pick up 90 percent of the tab forever. The states that choose to expand Medicaid this way will leave states like Louisiana, Wisconsin and North Carolina, which have declined the extension, subsidizing others. This is setting up trouble later.”

— Editorial from The Washington Times, advocating Medicaid block grants to states instead.

“We oppose same-sex marriage, but in the absence of a constitutional amendment enshrining our view it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to block it — and nobody has ever argued otherwise. Proponents of same-sex marriage feel no such inhibitions. The Supreme Court should be more dispassionate.”

— The editors of National Review, writing about the two gay-marriage cases heard last month by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“(G)lobal warming hysteria is based not on any accurate measurements of global climate, but rather on ‘proxies.' That is, scientists give their interpretation of tree rings and bacterial samples in fossils. Global warming ‘science' is strikingly similar to a witch doctor reading the entrails of a goat.”

— Jonathon Moseley, writing in the American Thinker about climate alarmists' vanishing credibility.

“(I)f the central political problem of Obamacare was that it created too many losers alongside its winners, then a successful conservative alternative would be a free-market approach that makes these losers whole again without depriving the winners of their new gains. This is a real possibility.”

— Jay Cost, writing in The Weekly Standard about how ObamaCare is more susceptible to reform than Medicare.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.