Jordan Johnson

[MooUBaby]

Tokoyo your comments about fox news and lynch mobs shows one thing and one thing only your "one of those spineless, gimme everything you make because I don't want to work, liberals. Its really a shame for all of us, but mostly it's a foolish choice on your part, because in the end you set yourself back.

 

[Tokyogriz]

Printing out Fox News propaganda then wiping with it is hard ass. Just using Florios front page attacks on UM Football as TP is kitten play.

 

[grizpack]

Wonder when Gwen is going to quote the text message from the "victim" in this case?????????????? :?

 

[BWahlberg]

Wonder when Gwen is going to quote the text message from the "victim" in this case?????????????? :?

 

[funny water]

Wonder when Gwen is going to quote the text message from the "victim" in this case?????????????? :?

:thumb: :lol:

 

[Copper Griz]

Well, there's a couple things worth noting here. The police an the county attorney can't comment about a case like this before charges are filed because it's unethical and could show malice. In most cases, all that would be disclosed by now would be the arrest record --but there hasn't been an arrest--and possibly the original complaint by the accuser--but what we know of the complaint in this case is that it provides no information backing up the claim. Notice that the county attorney never says anything about JJ. He says he's received 34 cases recently.He doesn't even say the report on JJ was among them.
Van de Wetering would like us to infer the case is leading to charges, yet for all we know the case moved weeks ago and is going nowhere. He's taking advantage of the county attorney's obligation to say nothing and playing on the Missoulian's desperation to hear and report anything.
This isn't journalism, it's stenography.
So why is Van de Wetering doing this now? He's trying to make JJ, a 20 year old college student squirm for what reason? You're not going to get a big settlement from a young adult. Most lawyers wouldn't even bother. So, is there another fish on the line, one with a bigger payout for Josh Van de Wetering? Probably.
There has to be at least the possibility of civil action for Josh Van de Wetering to be involved. There's no good paying role for him in a criminal trial where all the work is done by the prosecution and defense. The state even provides a free advocate for the accuser so Josh can't even turn a buck for babysitting the acuser through trial.
Shame on the Missoulian for letting Josh Van de Wetering lead it around by the nose. The Missoulian has once again assoiated a 20 year old with a crime so terrible the mere association could alter the course of this young man's life even if he's never charged.
Way to be a cancer on the face of society, Missoulian. :roll:

The true tragedy is the legal process does not get to take it's course prior to the accused being hung out to dry in the court of public opinion. If JJ did rape someone, then he should do hard time and I am highly doubtful any Griz fan would argue against this. What If he did not commit the crime of rape and is being falsely accused? Is the Missoulian going to run an article on the accuser? Are they going to try and repair the damage done to JJ? No, Ms. Florio will be moving on to the next piece that will sell papers and life goes on. The greatest lesson here is for all males - conduct yourselves appropriately at all times. A one night stand can become very costly.

 

[kemajic]

This is true fox news reports and gwen florios articles on UM football do share alot in common as they are both worth using as toilet paper.

Regarding your slander of Fox News by comparing to Gwen Florio, you expose your interest in only one side to any story. Thank goodness there is a Fox News; otherwise we would all be lemmings to an otherwise aligned liberal media. I guess in your mind Fox News is bad because they report that a $16 trillion deficit, increasing $4 trillion per year is not good and there can be consequences. Every time I think you have hit your peak, you soar to new heights of opinionated cerebral misfire.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Well, there's a couple things worth noting here. The police an the county attorney can't comment about a case like this before charges are filed because it's unethical and could show malice. In most cases, all that would be disclosed by now would be the arrest record --but there hasn't been an arrest--and possibly the original complaint by the accuser--but what we know of the complaint in this case is that it provides no information backing up the claim. Notice that the county attorney never says anything about JJ. He says he's received 34 cases recently.He doesn't even say the report on JJ was among them.
Van de Wetering would like us to infer the case is leading to charges, yet for all we know the case moved weeks ago and is going nowhere. He's taking advantage of the county attorney's obligation to say nothing and playing on the Missoulian's desperation to hear and report anything.
This isn't journalism, it's stenography.
So why is Van de Wetering doing this now? He's trying to make JJ, a 20 year old college student squirm for what reason? You're not going to get a big settlement from a young adult. Most lawyers wouldn't even bother. So, is there another fish on the line, one with a bigger payout for Josh Van de Wetering? Probably.
There has to be at least the possibility of civil action for Josh Van de Wetering to be involved. There's no good paying role for him in a criminal trial where all the work is done by the prosecution and defense. The state even provides a free advocate for the accuser so Josh can't even turn a buck for babysitting the acuser through trial.
Shame on the Missoulian for letting Josh Van de Wetering lead it around by the nose. The Missoulian has once again assoiated a 20 year old with a crime so terrible the mere association could alter the course of this young man's life even if he's never charged.
Way to be a cancer on the face of society, Missoulian. :roll:

The true tragedy is the legal process does not get to take it's course prior to the accused being hung out to dry in the court of public opinion. If JJ did rape someone, then he should do hard time and I am highly doubtful any Griz fan would argue against this. What If he did not commit the crime of rape and is being falsely accused? Is the Missoulian going to run an article on the accuser? Are they going to try and repair the damage done to JJ? No, Ms. Florio will be moving on to the next piece that will sell papers and life goes on. The greatest lesson here is for all males - conduct yourselves appropriately at all times. A one night stand can become very costly.

Well put, I cannot speak for everyone here, but do know parents, grand parents, aunts, uncles, and parents of friends, always told us kids, to be careful in relationships, even more so with sex. The problem is not with the advice, but being a teenager, or young adult, you just believe something like that could ever happen to you.

I pray for all the parties involved in all these situations. I am sure, some of the guys will be found guilty, and hope JJ is not one of them. As for the girls who have, or are, accusing guys of this, and did not happen, I hope you too realize, rather a guy be found guilty, or innocent, they too are damaged for life.

To the guys who did this crap, I hope you ask for forgiveness, and you too realize, you have damaged a woman for life. For many in society, a crime like this is hard to find forgiveness for. For any guy out there even contemplating these sick actions, I hope you never do it. I also hope before hand, you think how it would feel if that woman were your mother, daughter, sister, niece, or any female you are close to. You know damn well, you would be raging mad, and likely wanting revenge on any guy that would do that to a woman you care for.

As for Gwen Florio, I really do wish you would have approached this with articles about the problem in society, and left names out. The fact is none of the cases are complete, and will take time. You are painting a picture of JJ, that can damage him for life, even if he is found innocent. I really do wish you had the professional integrity to leave names out of your articles, until after the outcomes are decided.

At least after the outcomes, you can lash out to make your points, knowing it is doing so to someone that is guilty, and have it part of the punishment. You, Gwen Florio, are punishing well before the time is appropriate. God forbid, something ever happening to someone you care about, or your someone in your family being accused of something, but if a few locals start accusing them before the facts are out, I hope you bite your tongue, unlike the way you are with JJ. I do hope, if he is found innocent, you finally show some class, and integrity, and apologize for your approach.

If, by some chance, he is found guilty, you still will not have any respect, or apologies from me. I don't respect tabloid journalism, which is what you are resorting to. For those that will burn me for my comments, flame on. If she is as professional as she wants us to believe, how about trying a more professional approach. By the way, she is the reason why I am not following the Missoulian daily. When I want my Montana News, I am going to their competitors websites, or local tv websites. It is a sad day, when a small town newspaper has to resort to big city tactics to try selling news.

Finally, on a positive note. I am praying for everyone in this sad situation, and case of events. My prayers to the accusers/victims, the accused, and the journalists (praying more of you find the will, and integrity to take a higher road than Gwen Florio has).

 

[MooUBaby]

This is true fox news reports and gwen florios articles on UM football do share alot in common as they are both worth using as toilet paper.

Regarding your slander of Fox News by comparing to Gwen Florio, you expose your interest in only one side to any story. Thank goodness there is a Fox News; otherwise we would all be lemmings to an otherwise aligned liberal media. I guess in your mind Fox News is bad because they report that a $16 trillion deficit, increasing $4 trillion per year is not good and there can be consequences. Every time I think you have hit your peak, you soar to new heights of opinionated cerebral misfire.

Well said finally some common sense on here. Libs like Tokyo don't like fox because they exploit all that is wrong with the liberal movement for some the only defense is to criticize even when they know policies like Obamacare are unsustainable and unrealistic.

 

[Grizo406]

Well put, I cannot speak for everyone here, but do know parents, grand parents, aunts, uncles, and parents of friends, always told us kids, to be careful in relationships, even more so with sex. The problem is not with the advice, but being a teenager, or young adult, you just believe something like that could ever happen to you.

I pray for all the parties involved in all these situations. I am sure, some of the guys will be found guilty, and hope JJ is not one of them. As for the girls who have, or are, accusing guys of this, and did not happen, I hope you too realize, rather a guy be found guilty, or innocent, they too are damaged for life.

To the guys who did this crap, I hope you ask for forgiveness, and you too realize, you have damaged a woman for life. For many in society, a crime like this is hard to find forgiveness for. For any guy out there even contemplating these sick actions, I hope you never do it. I also hope before hand, you think how it would feel if that woman were your mother, daughter, sister, niece, or any female you are close to. You know damn well, you would be raging mad, and likely wanting revenge on any guy that would do that to a woman you care for.

As for Gwen Florio, I really do wish you would have approached this with articles about the problem in society, and left names out. The fact is none of the cases are complete, and will take time. You are painting a picture of JJ, that can damage him for life, even if he is found innocent. I really do wish you had the professional integrity to leave names out of your articles, until after the outcomes are decided.

At least after the outcomes, you can lash out to make your points, knowing it is doing so to someone that is guilty, and have it part of the punishment. You, Gwen Florio, are punishing well before the time is appropriate. God forbid, something ever happening to someone you care about, or your someone in your family being accused of something, but if a few locals start accusing them before the facts are out, I hope you bite your tongue, unlike the way you are with JJ. I do hope, if he is found innocent, you finally show some class, and integrity, and apologize for your approach.

If, by some chance, he is found guilty, you still will not have any respect, or apologies from me. I don't respect tabloid journalism, which is what you are resorting to. For those that will burn me for my comments, flame on. If she is as professional as she wants us to believe, how about trying a more professional approach. By the way, she is the reason why I am not following the Missoulian daily. When I want my Montana News, I am going to their competitors websites, or local tv websites. It is a sad day, when a small town newspaper has to resort to big city tactics to try selling news.

Finally, on a positive note. I am praying for everyone in this sad situation, and case of events. My prayers to the accusers/victims, the accused, and the journalists (praying more of you find the will, and integrity to take a higher road than Gwen Florio has).

Nicely put!

 

[Tod]

This is true fox news reports and gwen florios articles on UM football do share alot in common as they are both worth using as toilet paper.

Regarding your slander of Fox News by comparing to Gwen Florio, you expose your interest in only one side to any story. Thank goodness there is a Fox News; otherwise we would all be lemmings to an otherwise aligned liberal media. I guess in your mind Fox News is bad because they report that a $16 trillion deficit, increasing $4 trillion per year is not good and there can be consequences. Every time I think you have hit your peak, you soar to new heights of opinionated cerebral misfire.

Well said finally some common sense on here. Libs like Tokyo don't like fox because they exploit all that is wrong with the liberal movement for some the only defense is to criticize even when they know policies like Obamacare are unsustainable and unrealistic.

I'm guessing you haven't read the article that says Obamacare will save Medicare $200B, patients $200B, and cost $50B less than thought, all by 2020? Or that 5.1 million in the Medicare doughnut hole have already saved 3.6B? Or that 3 million Americans are about to get refund checks totaling 1.3B? Of course you haven't, you get your news from Fake News and other right-wing sources.

 

[PhxGriz]

This is true fox news reports and gwen florios articles on UM football do share alot in common as they are both worth using as toilet paper.

Regarding your slander of Fox News by comparing to Gwen Florio, you expose your interest in only one side to any story. Thank goodness there is a Fox News; otherwise we would all be lemmings to an otherwise aligned liberal media. I guess in your mind Fox News is bad because they report that a $16 trillion deficit, increasing $4 trillion per year is not good and there can be consequences. Every time I think you have hit your peak, you soar to new heights of opinionated cerebral misfire.

Well said finally some common sense on here. Libs like Tokyo don't like fox because they exploit all that is wrong with the liberal movement for some the only defense is to criticize even when they know policies like Obamacare are unsustainable and unrealistic.

I'm guessing you haven't read the article that says Obamacare will save Medicare $200B, patients $200B, and cost $50B less than thought, all by 2020? Or that 5.1 million in the Medicare doughnut hole have already saved 3.6B? Or that 3 million Americans are about to get refund checks totaling 1.3B? Of course you haven't, you get your news from Fake News and other right-wing sources.

Link please. Last I read was that the CBO pretty much said Obamacare was going to double the original estimates since they now have a full 10 year window to calculate.

 

[CrunchGriz]

According to factcheck.org, the "doubling" is spin based on comparing apples to oranges. Factcheck notes that, when fairly compared, there is a net decrease in costs of 0.6%.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/health-care-costs-didnt-double/

 

[kemajic]

I did read the article regarding how many new agencies and governmant employees were required to administer Obamacare. And you think this will improve cost-effectioveness and efficiency? The major objective is to move more money from the private sector into the public sector where it can be controlled and of course all those new public employees will be dem voters. Nothing new; part of the left game plan for years.

 

[hokeyfine]

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
At least try to find sources that are unbiased. I don't care if your for or against the healthcare act, but at least don't quote partisan blogs and talking points. :roll:

 

[PlayerRep]

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
At least try to find sources that are unbiased. I don't care if your for or against the healthcare act, but at least don't quote partisan blogs and talking points. :roll:

I have found that factcheck.org sometimes has a bias and sometimes is either not correct or omits important things. Generally, I find that most of the fact check sites/organizations make too many mistakes. I've often thought that those organizations seem to have people who don't understand the particular subject doing the fact-checking. Their quality of work is sometimes like that of a college student doing a research paper on a subject they knew nothing about at the outset of their research.

 

[Grizzoola]

I did read the article regarding how many new agencies and governmant employees were required to administer Obamacare. And you think this will improve cost-effectioveness and efficiency? The major objective is to move more money from the private sector into the public sector where it can be controlled and of course all those new public employees will be dem voters. Nothing new; part of the left game plan for years.

What about the administration of health insurance as it is now? Every hospital, clinic, etc., staffs just for insurance. I understand St. Pat's, for example, has one full-time employee for every insurance co. And, how many ins. co's are there in this state? Add the clerical help in addition. Same for the ins. co's. They have health ins. people, as well. Then, there's the $millions for the executives.

I'll bet the tens of thousands of health ins. processing staff out there right now could be vastly reduced by consolidating health ins. into one agency, that being the Fed. govt. Each hospital, clinic, etc., would have only one person handling claims, which would be a formality, just forwarding the info to the Feds. Not to mention NO health ins. staff needed anymore in the private sector.

I see HUGE economies with a universal health care system, unlike the jury-rigged, bloated, inefficient system we have now. Also, profit would be eliminated. Yes, there would be some expansion of staff on the Fed level, but that would be a fraction of the staff out there, now. Yes, taxes would increase, but I maintain the increase in taxes for this purpose would be FAR LESS than the cost of health ins. premiums, now.

Health ins. is one area where it's INEFFICIENT for the private sector to run it. The private sector has its place in our economy, but health ins. is not it. Consolidation is a tenet in any company; companies consolidate operations all the time while preserving effectiveness of objective. It just makes sense to consolidate all health ins. under one agency, and the Federal govt. is the only agency capable of doing that on a consistent, nation-wide basis.

And, Kem, stop this hysterical, "Oh, it's a leftist conspiracy!" That's BS & you know it. Maybe you don't know it & are just another Limbaugh Dittohead.

 

[getgrizzy]

I did read the article regarding how many new agencies and governmant employees were required to administer Obamacare. And you think this will improve cost-effectioveness and efficiency? The major objective is to move more money from the private sector into the public sector where it can be controlled and of course all those new public employees will be dem voters. Nothing new; part of the left game plan for years.

What about the administration of health insurance as it is now? Every hospital, clinic, etc., staffs just for insurance. I understand St. Pat's, for example, has one full-time employee for every insurance co. And, how many ins. co's are there in this state? Add the clerical help in addition. Same for the ins. co's. They have health ins. people, as well. Then, there's the $millions for the executives.

I'll bet the tens of thousands of health ins. processing staff out there right now could be vastly reduced by consolidating health ins. into one agency, that being the Fed. govt. Each hospital, clinic, etc., would have only one person handling claims, which would be a formality, just forwarding the info to the Feds. Not to mention NO health ins. staff needed anymore in the private sector.

I see HUGE economies with a universal health care system, unlike the jury-rigged, bloated, inefficient system we have now. Also, profit would be eliminated. Yes, there would be some expansion of staff on the Fed level, but that would be a fraction of the staff out there, now. Yes, taxes would increase, but I maintain the increase in taxes for this purpose would be FAR LESS than the cost of health ins. premiums, now.

Health ins. is one area where it's INEFFICIENT for the private sector to run it. The private sector has its place in our economy, but health ins. is not it. Consolidation is a tenet in any company; companies consolidate operations all the time while preserving effectiveness of objective. It just makes sense to consolidate all health ins. under one agency, and the Federal govt. is the only agency capable of doing that on a consistent, nation-wide basis.

And, Kem, stop this hysterical, "Oh, it's a leftist conspiracy!" That's BS & you know it. Maybe you don't know it & are just another Limbaugh Dittohead.

excellent viewpoint. the only people that should be profitting on the sick are the healers of the sick.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I did read the article regarding how many new agencies and governmant employees were required to administer Obamacare. And you think this will improve cost-effectioveness and efficiency? The major objective is to move more money from the private sector into the public sector where it can be controlled and of course all those new public employees will be dem voters. Nothing new; part of the left game plan for years.

What about the administration of health insurance as it is now? Every hospital, clinic, etc., staffs just for insurance. I understand St. Pat's, for example, has one full-time employee for every insurance co. And, how many ins. co's are there in this state? Add the clerical help in addition. Same for the ins. co's. They have health ins. people, as well. Then, there's the $millions for the executives.

I'll bet the tens of thousands of health ins. processing staff out there right now could be vastly reduced by consolidating health ins. into one agency, that being the Fed. govt. Each hospital, clinic, etc., would have only one person handling claims, which would be a formality, just forwarding the info to the Feds. Not to mention NO health ins. staff needed anymore in the private sector.

I see HUGE economies with a universal health care system, unlike the jury-rigged, bloated, inefficient system we have now. Also, profit would be eliminated. Yes, there would be some expansion of staff on the Fed level, but that would be a fraction of the staff out there, now. Yes, taxes would increase, but I maintain the increase in taxes for this purpose would be FAR LESS than the cost of health ins. premiums, now.

Health ins. is one area where it's INEFFICIENT for the private sector to run it. The private sector has its place in our economy, but health ins. is not it. Consolidation is a tenet in any company; companies consolidate operations all the time while preserving effectiveness of objective. It just makes sense to consolidate all health ins. under one agency, and the Federal govt. is the only agency capable of doing that on a consistent, nation-wide basis.

And, Kem, stop this hysterical, "Oh, it's a leftist conspiracy!" That's BS & you know it. Maybe you don't know it & are just another Limbaugh Dittohead.

Name ONE thing the government does efficiently.

 

[grizcountry420]

I did read the article regarding how many new agencies and governmant employees were required to administer Obamacare. And you think this will improve cost-effectioveness and efficiency? The major objective is to move more money from the private sector into the public sector where it can be controlled and of course all those new public employees will be dem voters. Nothing new; part of the left game plan for years.

What about the administration of health insurance as it is now? Every hospital, clinic, etc., staffs just for insurance. I understand St. Pat's, for example, has one full-time employee for every insurance co. And, how many ins. co's are there in this state? Add the clerical help in addition. Same for the ins. co's. They have health ins. people, as well. Then, there's the $millions for the executives.

I'll bet the tens of thousands of health ins. processing staff out there right now could be vastly reduced by consolidating health ins. into one agency, that being the Fed. govt. Each hospital, clinic, etc., would have only one person handling claims, which would be a formality, just forwarding the info to the Feds. Not to mention NO health ins. staff needed anymore in the private sector.

I see HUGE economies with a universal health care system, unlike the jury-rigged, bloated, inefficient system we have now. Also, profit would be eliminated. Yes, there would be some expansion of staff on the Fed level, but that would be a fraction of the staff out there, now. Yes, taxes would increase, but I maintain the increase in taxes for this purpose would be FAR LESS than the cost of health ins. premiums, now.

Health ins. is one area where it's INEFFICIENT for the private sector to run it. The private sector has its place in our economy, but health ins. is not it. Consolidation is a tenet in any company; companies consolidate operations all the time while preserving effectiveness of objective. It just makes sense to consolidate all health ins. under one agency, and the Federal govt. is the only agency capable of doing that on a consistent, nation-wide basis.

And, Kem, stop this hysterical, "Oh, it's a leftist conspiracy!" That's BS & you know it. Maybe you don't know it & are just another Limbaugh Dittohead.

Name ONE thing the government does efficiently.

Locking people up in Prison