Cleo's Mom

This is beyond naive. What about stay at home moms whose husband dies when she is young and has several children? We have social security for her children now. What about those who become disabled and can't work? We have social security for that now. What about the person who becomes unemployed and loses healthcare? We have unemployment for that. What about the working poor? They do have jobs but will never be able to afford healthcare. We had medicaid for that. And those who work but can't afford housing? We have subsidies for that. What about elderly who never had children and become ill and need 24/7 care? We have nursing homes funded by medicaid for that. I could go on and on but you make no sense in your assessments and show that you don't have a realistic grasp of how the world is. You live in a fantasy world where everything is black and white and RIGID. Grow up. That's not the real world.

It is christians, like you, who are intolerant of the non-christians, not the other way around. You dare to tell them to either "become christians" or tolerate christians when you don't tolerate their demands to be treated equally by our nation.

Do you have any idea the staggering amount of money it costs to help the poor and struggling in our society? Social security, medicaid, medicare, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, housing subsidies for the poor, child care subsidies,unemployment benefits, etc.. This is what we do as a nation and what makes us great and separates us from third world and developing nations. I am proud that we don't treat our poor with a "you made your bed now lie in it" attitude. And you want ALL of these needs to be taken care of by VOLUNTARY charitible contributions? How very naive and unrealistic.

I base it on your many postings in which you say "why can't they (non-christians) just be happy to live here where they can practice their religion" implying that they shouldn't expect our country, our government to afford them the same attention or acceptance as christianity gets. Thus the whole brouhaha that saying "Happy Holidays" gets or when some prefer to keep nativity scenes at religious places and out of government buildings. Your postings show that you believe this is a white, christian, English speaking nation and anyone who doesn't fit this profile should just be grateful to be allowed to be here. And be satisfied with that. And we (our government, our businesses, etc) shouldn't be making any concession to those who are not white, christian and English speaking.

WE were here first? I think the Native American Indians would take exception to that statement. Not to mention how childish that statement is. So what that our founding fathers came from a country where christianity was the dominate religion? They did not set out to make this a christian nation. They set out to make it a nation free from establishing a religion. The fact that they practiced some christian customs does NOT mean that they intended for our government to be a christian one. So, if someone doesn't think our government should be promoting christianity they have a "nerve"? Again, childish. If they are taxpaying citizens they have a right to express their views, just as you believe the teabaggers do. If your christianity is threatened because our government doesn't promote it, or that others don't want any religion in government, then your christianity is not that strong. If your beliefs can only be validated if our government promotes them then that is problematic. I don't understand why you would want the government that you don't believe gets anything right and is the problem to become involved or promote your religion. I would think that it would be the last entity you would want involved in a personal decision like religion.

The last time I checked all places of worship were free to worship at will and the christian ones were free to display God/Jesus as they saw fit and include Him in all of their literature, displays, pageants, songs, private schools, etc.. The same is true for our own private homes. And our privates lives. But for some reason, that is not enough for the christian zealots. Somehow, they need to have their religion validated by the check out girl at Wal Mart saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" or a creche displayed at the municipal building or the public schools. Only then are they satisfied. They are just troublemakers who have too much time on their hands. Move on.

I am very happy with the "fruits" that Pres. Obama has come to bear, so to speak. I think given the mess he inherited, he is addressing some very difficult problems that were ignored by bush and doing the best he can.

This country doesn't want a theocracy. And it doesn't need one. It needs a president with brains who understands the complexities of the world we live in. We did dumb for 8 years with tragic consequences. Also, the president does not have the powers that you would give Palin to make those changes that you think she would want to make. And I am thankful that there are 3 branches of government to provide checks and balances. All of our presidents have been self-proclaimed christians, including Obama, but most did not mix their religion with their governing and that is how it should be and that is what the american people want and expect, except for a few radicals on the right.

The government is already in the healthcare business in medicare, medicaid and veteran's medical care. I don't have a problem with them offering or providing non-profit healthcare. We should take the profit motive out of healthcare. I am glad the government regulates things. It was de-regulated wall street that caused the economy to crash. IT WASN'T THE GOVERNMENT - IT WAS CORPORATE AMERICA. CORPORATE AMERICA ARE THE BAD GUYS AND THEY NEED REGULATED TO REIN IN THEIR GREED AND RECKLESS BEHAVIOR. AND THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE AT THE TOP OF THE GREEDY LIST. I am glad the government regulates the food and drugs I use and the safety of the workplace. And regulates for clean air and water. CORPORATE AMERICA WOULD NEVER DO THESE THINGS ON THEIR OWN - THEY ARE JUST ABOUT MAKING MONEY. PERIOD. SO IT IS UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO KEEP US SAFE - AND THAT DOESN'T JUST MEAN MILITARILY. And as for insurance companies getting too big - well "too big to fail" (eg: AIG) was/is a big problem with our economic crisis and being too big to fail caused a lot of the problems and the need for a bailout. No company should be allowed to get that big. And I'm all for regulations that would prevent it. My other mantra: Regulate, baby , regulate.

This poster on dailykos makes a compelling case for why we liberals think Sarah Palin is stupid and therefore unqualified to be president: The Irrefutable Stupidity of Sarah Palin by Cenk Uygur Share this on Twitter - The Irrefutable Stupidity of Sarah Palin Mon Dec 07, 2009 at 02:57:12 AM PST From time to time, I'll get into a about whether Sarah Palin is actually stupid or if liberals are just hopelessly biased against her. They claim this bias comes from the fact that liberals are scared of her electability, her charm, her looks, her femininity, her Christianity, her ability connect to the common man and her overall wonderfulness. So, the theory is that we have all collectively decided that she is the best Republican candidate in some secret liberal meeting and are conspiring against her because we are afraid of how brilliant and electable she really is.Now, there are a couple of problems with this theory. There are no opinion leaders on the left with Rush Limbaugh-like authority who can command all other progressives to think the same thing and use the same arguments against one person. In other words, we all think she is stupid because she is in fact stupid, not because some liberal cabal told us to think that. Cenk Uygur's diary :: :: How come we don't call Newt Gingrich stupid? Or Dick Cheney or Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole or Dennis Hastert? And the list goes on and on of heinous and deplorable right-wingers who are not stupid. We don't make those charges against those people, because as much as we might not agree with them or like them, we know that they are not dullards. They're all clever in their own way. Mitt Romney is greasy, Michael Steele is a clown and Tom DeLay is dirty, but we don't go after their mental acuity like we do with Sarah Palin because they're not as dumb as her (not even Steele). So, finally we get to the evidence. I thought I'd just do it here and be done with it. Then I can just point people to this post from now on and end this senseless argument. Now, there are a million examples of this, but I thought I'd go with three knockout punches here. In the first video, we have the , where she does not know the basic foreign policy of the Republican president at the time. How could she possibly be running for vice president and not know this? The only thing more unconscionable is the sad excuses her supporters make for this terribly botched answer. In the second video, we have a largely overlooked example of her pathetic lack of foreign policy knowledge. She has no idea what Hamas is or what they have to do with the Gaza Strip. If you're next door neighbor or plumber doesn't know this, that's fine, but they weren't running for Vice President of the United States. This should be game set and match for anyone, especially self-respecting conservatives, thinking of supporting her. This is when you have to walk away embarrassed. But remarkably, they didn't slink away embarrassed after this answer, so we have the latest example of her buffoonery. In this interview with Bill O'Reilly, he asks her if she is smart enough to be president. Her answer has to be seen to be believed. Don't get me wrong, just because you see it won't mean you'll understand it. So, I put a transcript of her answer below so that you can try to decipher it in your spare time. Bill O'Reilly: Let me be very bold and fresh again, do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world? Sarah Palin: I believe that I am because I have common sense and I have I believe the values that I think are reflective of so many other American values, and I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the uhm, the ah, a kind of spineless, spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite, Ivy league education and, and a fat resume that is based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans are could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership, I'm not saying that that has to be me. Can anyone really be biased enough to think that was a smart answer? The great irony is that he asked her if she's smart enough to be president and she gave what might be her dumbest answer yet. That answer was so bad it almost made George W. Bush look smart. Can anyone in good conscience defend that answer and say with a straight face that she should be this country's leader? If you say yes, then there is no sense in talking to one another anymore because we are not operating in the same reality, or planet. We'll never be able to agree on anything if we can't agree that was just about as incomprehensible and stupid an answer as you can possibly come up with. And that settles the debate, because you either live in the reality based world and realize she is obviously not qualified, or in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert you believe that "reality has a well-known liberal bias" and she would make a great president.

I am SO glad you asked that because I have been thinking the same thing. Why would anyone outside of the insurance industry advocate soooooo much for them and worry sooooo much about whether they might go out of business if a public option available to about 2% of the uninsured gets passed. I advocate for the american people and couldn't care less if the greedy, profit-driven, claim-denying insurance companies go out of business due to their unscrupulous policies.

Call it what you want, it's the facts. But that's right, you don't believe the facts when they prove you wrong.

I don't assume something funded by the government is automatically wrong like you do. That is irrational. And scare tactics and emotional nonsense are not based in facts. They are what they are. But if said often enough and lied about often enough - enough stupid people will begin to believe them and then it won't matter that they aren't true. For example: if I want information about embryonic stem cell research, I am not going to listen to Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin - I am going to listen to the doctors who actually work in that field. People like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are not experts in anything. All they offer is their off the chart, bizzare right wing opinions and they sell it as entertainment. But again, if it sells, then some believe it must be true.

I try to use expert testimony or scientific facts, independent sources (like the CBO) and avoid those where scare tactics, emotional nonsense and outright lies prevail (examples would be death panels, Obama is a Muslim and wasn't born in US).

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that tort reform would save about $54 billion over 10 years. Hardly the 500 billion stated. The CBO is an independent budget agency. As to purchasing insurance across state line: Those who support purchasing health insurance from any state argue that it will invigorate market competition and drive down premiums. However, a recent study by the New America Foundation showed that: The primary source of "savings" under [this kind of proposal] is not more competition or more efficient insurers. The savings comes from separating the healthy from the sick.... [it] would lower premiums for the healthiest Americans, but it would raise premiums and reduce coverage options for everyone else. Indeed, permitting the sale of health insurance across state lines would undermine all existing consumer protections, which are determined state by state. As Families USA revealed, state consumer protections-particularly in the individual health insurance market-vary dramatically from state to state. Some states have made tremendous strides in creating accessible, functional insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. As the New America Foundation points out, Senator McCain's proposal would eliminate the best protections and bring all states down to the lowest common denominator: [selling health insurance across state lines] would have the ultimate effect of standardizing state regulation to the least restrictive level, thus de facto de-regulating individual insurance markets. Politically, this allows the de-regulatory preferences of one state to negate the regulatory preferences of the 49 other states, without either a national or state-specific vote. This proposal has far more insidious implications for consumers than its proponents will admit. Crossing state lines to find a great deal on a limited edition autographed book is one thing. Crossing state lines to find health insurance just crosses the line.

There is no global warming, we didn't land on the moon, bush was behind the world trade center tragedy, kennedy was killed by the ____(mafia, cubans, union bosses, etc.), the sun revolves around the earth...ad infinitum, ad nauseum - all with websites offering "proof" YAWN

And why the sexual abuse of children was allowed to go on for as long as it did with the church authority just keeping it hush, hush and moving abusing priests around - until the abused brought lawsuits and made it a public issue. And these same religious people are the ones who are supposed to have the moral authority to hold the eucharist hostage against publicly elected representatives who vote pro-choice - which is the law of the land? There were catholics who still refused to believe that priests could abuse children and accused the victims of bashing the church. But that refers back to my previous post about emotional opinions lacking facts are elevated to serious debate.

Everyone should read the book "Idiot America". It reveals how untruths, myths, irrelevant rants, and opinions are elevated to serious debate. Scientific facts and experts are ignored in favor of these "opinions". Religion is often the medium through which these things are elevated to serious debate because we as a polite society are not supposed to question religion. From creationism (renamed "intelligent design" to give it more credence), to the Terry Schiavo case (where the government did literally come between a patient and a medical decision) to global warming - the other side depends on the need of people to "take sides" in issues even when one side is completely false and based on nothing more than gut feelings. They try to present their side which has little more than emotional rants (and let's not forget religion). We see that with posts on here over and over again. For example: In the case of Dover, PA when a group of religious zealots took over the school board and tried to get creationism taught in the schools, it ended up dividing the town and went to trial. The so-called experts for creationsim got ripped to shreds on the witness stand and they lost their case. Because they had nothing, in reality. New board members were elected and that was that, but it should never have gotten that far.

I agree with everything else you say. To the usual government bashing, fear mongering, distorting and lying posts I say: YAWN. :w00t:

You are being impatient. You have already lost 11.5 pounds in 19 days. That is very good. You ARE being successful. This is a long journey that you will be on for the rest of your life. Your body is still healing and you haven't had any fills yet. Give your body some time to adjust. Stick to your meal plans and exercise. The weight will come off, especially after you get some restriction. Don't weigh yourself every day. Put the scale away. Weigh yourself no more than once a week. And give yourself a break. You are doing well. Good luck.

This is just your same old tired "the sinister, plotting, evil government who wants to take all your money and control everything"..ad infinitum...ad nauseum. I have refuted these points before. I am tired of continuing to do so. I know I have the facts on my side. I don't need to support them with fear tactic and conspiracy theories.

Are you really that naive? Who do you think has that kind of control now??? THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!! That's who decides if they are going to cover you at all when you get sick, or if they will pay for the procedure the doctor says you need. Or which person will get the procedure, etc.. They deny, deny, and deny all the time. They have ALL the control and power. But somehow you are okay with that. I guess because they make obscene profits because of it.

Happy thanksgiving to everyone!!

You just went there. Why didn't Hannity correct her or why didn't she correct herself? Because until they're caught, Fox news just keeps on putting the lies out there. Like they did with the pictures of the November rally which were actually pictures from the Sept. rally. Until they were caught - they just let the lie continue. And this is where people get their news?? No wonder people are so ill-informed and mis-informed!!:thumbup: