Their translations are not the issue, really. They DO have a viewpoint and an agenda, and when you go to the site you should be aware of it. It doesn’t discount the site as a source–it is a useful window on the middle east and a decent research tool. If you’re only getting an excerpt of a document, it behooves you to get the entire thing if you suspect bias.

Someone with credibility will have to carry that banner–Malkin has none.

You got it exactly right–they create a situation where “defense” is required, simply out of decency…and then they whine because their opponent is getting the biggest bite out of the news cycle!

Why is that so hard to understand?

Look, you’ve got three politicians here–one’s a steak dinner, the second one is a peanut butter sandwich, and the third is a soggy bowl of cheap cereal. We’ve been denied our steak dinner for now (and hopefully we’ll be able to enjoy it in four years), so we’re going to have to settle for the peanut butter sandwich–the soggy cereal can go into the disposal, it’s inedible. The peanut butter is nutritious, certainly, it’ll keep us alive, it’s just not as tasty as the steak.

Vote for peanut butter for now, and demand steak in four years!

Weren’t they nannying the crap out of that evolution, not allowing fried foods, skipping balloons because they aren’t easily recyclable, all that happy green crap?

How hard would it have been to put a big box in the foyer and ask people to deposit their flag in it if they didn’t want to take it home as a souvenier? Sheesh–it’s the simple, stupid things that get ‘em every time.

Obama claims to oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry. prorev. com/2007/ 05/few-things- to-forget- about-when.

Obama supporters states his plan is universal and just like Hillary’s plan. Let’s compare:

Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history.

Both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans.

However, Hillary’s plan is more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And, it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.

But the big difference is mandates:
Hillary’s plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.

Under Obama’s plan, healthy people would take their chances and not sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby, raising premiums for everyone else. So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan and cost more.
nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html