Cleo's Mom

Originally Posted by pattygreen The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was pushed by the christian right. That's legislation. All the laws restricting abortion rights came from the christian right for the most part. Good. No one should be allowed to kill anyone else. That wasn't the point. Your point was that the legislation was coming from liberals. Not true, as usual. If you believe divorce is wrong then don't get a divorce but don't try to stand in the way of those who want to divorce. Geez. No Christian I know is stopping you or anyone anyone from getting a divorce or pushing any legislation to keep you from getting a divorce.Good, keep it that way. We believe that marriage should be for life, except for marital unfaithfulness, but we don't desire to make it a law or anything. So, noone is standing in your way, as you say. Oh, and that sex with a dog? Must have gotten that from "man on dog" ultra right wing republican ex-senator Santorum that my state was happy to get rid of. Never heard of it.Also, good. Then that means he's not as relevant as he thinks he is. You claim that you don't want to legislate but that's exactly what you want to do when you CHANGE the laws to make marriage only between a man and a woman. Marriage is a God ordained institution between a man and a woman who choose to live together and form a family. They say vows unto God and pledge their lives together. So, if a man and a man want to have a relationship with each other, similar to marriage, then they should start their own thing. Marriage is for men and women together. Civil Unions was what they called it. But no, they wont be satisfied with that. They want Christians and the rest of society to 'recognize' their union as a decent and acceptable way of living. It's not! It's a sin to do what they do together and nothing can change that. Here's where you're wrong. Marriage is defined by and recognized by the state. Religion and God have nothing to do with it. The state recognizes a marriage performed by a judge or justice of the peace just the same as a minister or priest. That is all the gays want - that their marriage be recognized by the state so that all the marriage benefits can be conferred upon them. They do not want or ask for any of your religious "blessings". If that was what marriage laws were all along, why the need for a new law? Why the need for a change? Because marriage wasn't clearly defined as between a man and woman and those on the right LEGISLATED that it be so. No one is asking for your consent either. They just want you to get out of the way from them enjoying the same rights as everyone else. Same marriage benefits confered. And no one wants your consent to have a lawful abortion. If you don't believe in it - don't have one, but don't stand in the way of a woman who chooses to have a lawful abortion.

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom Someone has to stand up for what is morally correct and decent in this world. Christians do that. And thank God, too. Otherwise, we'd be living as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. Or as in the days of Noah when man was so wicked and was so depraved that God had to destroy them and start over. Looks like we're headed that way again. We can thank people like you who like to live in a sinful society and therefore vote that way. Thanks Cleo'smom!:thumbup: THIS IS NOT, NOT, NOT MY QUOTE!!! YIKES. I WOULD HATE FOR ANYONE TO THINK IT IS.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. All those single moms are living in that apartment because they have all this help from families and the baby's daddy. I sometimes wonder where you get these ideas. You really are not connected to reality in the least.

Another naive and sweeping statement. Yes, I know that all those people who have elderly parents have luxury cars and their kids should go to a community college. Plus, medicaid doesn't kick in until all the patient's assets are used up.

pattygreen's simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions to complex problems reflects a naivete, immaturity and the inability to understand the dynamics of our government and the problems it faces. This is seen by so many on the right, especially the tea party candidates, who make grandiose promises that are totally unrealistic but appeal to the uniformed. For example: getting rid of the Dept. of Education, the IRS, amending the 14th amendment, etc.. None of these things are going to happen but it doesn't stop them from promising them. Actually, I am happy when a tea party candidate wins a republican primary because their extremist positions will be more than amplified by the democratic candidate and mainstream voters will be turned off by their whacko ideas.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was pushed by the christian right. That's legislation. All the laws restricting abortion rights came from the christian right for the most part. If you believe divorce is wrong then don't get a divorce but don't try to stand in the way of those who want to divorce. Geez. Oh, and that sex with a dog? Must have gotten that from "man on dog" ultra right wing republican ex-senator Santorum that my state was happy to get rid of. You claim that you don't want to legislate but that's exactly what you want to do when you CHANGE the laws to make marriage only between a man and a woman. If that was what marriage laws were all along, why the need for a new law? Why the need for a change? Because marriage wasn't clearly defined as between a man and woman and those on the right LEGISLATED that it be so. No one is asking for your consent either. They just want you to get out of the way from them enjoying the same rights as everyone else. Same marriage benefits confered. And no one wants your consent to have a lawful abortion. If you don't believe in it - don't have one, but don't stand in the way of a woman who chooses to have a lawful abortion.

Not to mention that they might not have the room. Put the bed in you living room then. People in nursing homes require skilled care to care for a multitude of health issues. They need to be monitored and can't be left alone. No they don't. 90% of all the elderly in nursing homes could be cared for at home if there was someone who was willing to do it. What did they do before nursing homes were invented? Families took care of their parents. The nursing home medical personnel make the determination if someone qualifies for 24/7 skilled care. But I guess you know more than all of them collectively. Before there were nursing homes, people didn't live as long or with such disabling conditions. Like strokes, etc..

People cannot afford to give up a job to take care of an invalid parent even if they get their SS checks. Why not? Their parents were obviously living on it. It's not that. It's that kids are self centered and don't want to sacrifice for a while or give up anything in order to care for their parents until they are gone. The elderly parents can live off of it because their homes are paid off and their families grown. Parents who have children at home with college in the future, a mortgage, car payments, etc.. cannot afford to quit their job. As usual you have unrealistic "solutions" to complex problems.

There are no jobs. Didn't you just post a big long cut and paste about why they aren't hiring? Trying to have it both ways. Geez. There are still jobs to be had. everywhere. Minimum wage jobs. Maybe. But you can't post "why I'm not hiring" which blames the government, of course, and then say there are jobs everywhere. Oh, I forgot, yes you can. You're a hypocrite.

That's right. I forgot your unrealistic plan. Live in a $100/week apartment with roommates and work at at McDonald's (or Walmart) and go to school to be a CNA at night and I forget who's supposed to watch her kid or how she's going to get to and from school and work. I guess she'll have to find one of those magical apartments right near a bus line that goes to both. And paying for school? Well, again, the details are sketchy. You know, this is funny. You think it is unrealistic to live in a one room apt. at $100. a week and save your money and work and sacrifice your way up to a better life style. People in other countries live outside and/or in a box and don't complain. American's don't count their blessings. You left out who was going to pay for the childcare while this woman is working and going to school - day and night (work during day, school at night or visa versa) or how she's supposed to get to both job and school. Public transportation is not that good. Our standard of living in this country is such that living in a box and not complaining is not acceptable, despite the fact that that is where republicans want us to go.

You should have suffered the consequences for your promiscuous pre-marital behavior and subsequent out of wedlock pregnancy but instead you turned to the government to support your "sins". It doesn't matter that you paid it back. The government programs were there when you needed them - something you want to deny to others. *I did suffer the consequences for it. And, I'm glad for it. I learned alot from that. Any "suffering" that you claim was lessened by whatever government aid you were more than happy to accept and for which you now criticize others in true hypocritical fashion.

Suffering the consequences for our own actions is how we grow. I suppose you never let your children suffer the consequences for their actions. You probably fixed all their mistakes and covered for their every wrong doing. In so doing you failed as a parent. The government is not our parent. That aside, how dare you speak about my parenting of which you know nothing. I am a very good parent. As was my late husband. As teachers we had high standards for both behavior and academic achievement for our children. Both are college educated, both married college educated people and all four have good jobs. There were consequences for their bad behavior. And they all turned out great. I guess the proof of my parenting is in the pudding. And I'll hold my kids and my parenting up against anyone's. *I said you "probably" fixed all their problems. I get that from desire for the government to be the 'fixer' of American's problems. I don't expect the government to solve all the problems but I do expect them to provide safety nets for the least among us, just like they provide corporate welfare for the most among us. And just to let you know in no uncertain terms: ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY KIDS ARE OFF LIMITS. GOT IT??

Yawn It is the job of each congressman to bring back federal dollars to his/her district. You are too naive and uninformed to understand this. These funds provide jobs. But people always look to other districts and pick and choose what they consider outrageous uses of money. But there can be legitimate reasons for these funds. But the bottom line is they create jobs and that is what the congressman wants to get credit for. Helping to create jobs in his/her district. Through shovel ready projects or research or whatever. But you don't seem to grasp that. Is there waste? There is waste everywhere, but this spending is for the most part about jobs, jobs, jobs.

The Obamas have stated that they paid for this vacation. The security and travel on Air Force 2 are all a part of being the First Lady of the United States. If Michelle Obama opted to fly commercial and attempted to ditch the Secret Service then there would be “outrage” over how she could do such a thing. She would be ridiculed as clearly not having any understanding of the pomp and protocol that comes with being the wife of the President. To some of her critics Michelle Obama is guilty of only being the wife of a sitting Democratic President, with midterm elections looming. To some she is guilty of a more unforgivable crime, being the first Black First Lady, comfortable in her own skin, and charting her own course. To those critics she is damned if she do, damned if she don’t. Mrs. Obama is the first lady and the mother of two young daughters. She has the right to travel just like other first ladies have and to have that travel and security paid for just like other first ladies. She paid for the vacation expenses herself. Also, it is not surprising that those on the right and the republicans would rather focus on this non-issue than the fact that: -they voted against the unemployment extention -they voted against the 9-11 first responder bill -they voted against the small business jobs bill -they voted against the state aid bill THEY VOTED AGAINST AMERICA!! They have NOTHING to offer the American people but more tax cuts for the rich and more de-regulation of corrupt and greedy corporations, so they have to pick on Michelle Obama. And these are the people some want to elect more of. Yikes!!

Just look at the outlandish vacation expenses for Mrs. Obama. Just another small sign of the corruption by these Chicago politicians. And the rest of the political arena. They live in a world of their own unaware of the reality of what is going on in the lives of the people they are supposed to be governing! They spend money as if there were no end to it. Bush Made 77 Trips to Crawford TX at $226,072 a Pop Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:18:07 AM PDT This is a repost from June 2, 2009, when Wingnuttia was in an uproar over the Obamas' visit to New York City for dinner and a show. Reposting just the relevant info regarding the costs of the Bushes' frequent vacations to Crawford. I guess if you own a private mansion it's okay to take as many vacations as you like, but not if you have to pay (out of your own pocket) for a hotel. Bush Made 77 Trips to Crawford TX at $226,072 a Pop At a bare minimum, for the flights alone, Bush's 77 vacation trips to Crawford cost us $226,072 per trip. That's $17,407,544 so he could ride his bicycle in the woods and clear brush for the cameras.

This wouldn't have to happen if every politician would just surrender 1/2 or more of his paycheck back to the bank. That's where our money is going. In their pockets. Just look at the outlandish vacation expenses for Mrs. Obama. Just another small sign of the corruption by these Chicago politicians. And the rest of the political arena. They live in a world of their own unaware of the reality of what is going on in the lives of the people they are supposed to be governing! They spend money as if there were no end to it. Paul Krugman: America blacks out The anti-government movement is sending us back to the dark ages Wednesday, August 11, 2010 The lights are going out all over America -- literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno. Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: In a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain and returning them to gravel. And a nation that once prized education -- that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children -- is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead. We're told that we have no choice, that basic government functions -- essential services that have been provided for generations -- are no longer affordable. And it's true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn't be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases. And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn't cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children. But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and "centrist" Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade. (This is where the money is going - to the top 2% who don't need it or deserve it). In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: Given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation's foundations to crumble -- literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education -- they're choosing the latter. It's a disastrous choice in both the short run and the long run. In the short run, those state and local cutbacks are a major drag on the economy, perpetuating devastatingly high unemployment. It's crucial to keep state and local government in mind when you hear people ranting about runaway government spending under President Barack Obama. Yes, the federal government is spending more, although not as much as you might think. But state and local governments are cutting back. And if you add them together, it turns out that the only big spending increases have been in safety-net programs like unemployment insurance, which have soared in cost thanks to the severity of the slump. That is, for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all. And with federal spending now trailing off, while big state and local cutbacks continue, we're going into reverse. But isn't keeping taxes low for the affluent also a form of stimulus? Not so you'd notice. When we save a schoolteacher's job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there's a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle. And what about the economy's future? Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we're going backward. How did we get to this point? It's the logical consequence of three decades of anti-government rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can't do anything right. The anti-government campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud -- to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around.(An incorrect view that has been presented on these boards many times) But those were myths: There was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we're seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole. So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we've taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere.

We have no problem with your views. We have a big problem when you want to legislate those views and make them part of our government. If you think abortion is murder - don't have one or let your daughter have one If you think gay sex is a sin - don't do it If you think premarital sex is a sin - don't do it If you think divorce is a sin - don't get divorced

That is funny. And true.

FYI Protein Drink Dangers: Study Finds Toxins in liquids, powders By Marrecca Fiore Jun 1st 2010 12:54PM Categories: Healthy Eating, News A new investigation from "Consumer Reports" finds that some ready-to-drink protein powders and liquids are contaminated with dangerous metals that pose health risks and can have toxic effects on the body's organs. The investigation appears in the magazine's July issue and included the testing of 15 protein drinks, as well as a review of government documents and interviews with health and fitness experts, and consumers. It found that most people already get enough protein and that even people who do not can find "far better and cheaper ways to add more if it's needed." All 15 of the drinks tested by "Consumer Reports" had one or more the following contaminants: arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury. If consumed in excess, these contaminants can have toxic effects on the body and its organs. The Early Show on CBS took a hidden camera to health stores and not only were they not warned of health risks associated with the drinks, workers at the store also said that there was no harm in overuse of the products. But Erin Palinski, a trainer and dietitian, told The Early Show that excessive protein intake can do more harm to the body than good. Too much protein in the diet can lead to dehydration, digestive problems, increased risk of osteoporosis and, for some people, kidney problems, The Early Show reports. "What we're concerned with here is a chronic, low-level exposure to a heavy metal," Urvashi Rangan, of "Consumer Reports," told The Early Show. "And what people should know is that heavy metals, once they come into our body, tend to stay there for a long period of time." Specifically, "Consumer Reports" found that EAS Myoplex Original Rich Dark chocolate and Muscle Milk Chocolate and vanilla Crème can expose users to elevated levels of heavy metals when they consume three servings a day. But a spokesman for the supplement industry told CBS that consumers should not find the magazine's investigation "alarming." He added that, "the heavy metals that were found [in the protein drinks] are well below the limits the FDA would be concerned about, so they don't pose a health risk to consumers at all."

Yeah, and the republicans who opposed extending unemployment benefits while endorsing the tax cuts for the rich make the argument that allowing the tax cuts to expire would stifle job creation and hurt the economy. First of all they don't give a rat's patuty about the economy. And secondly here is a major news flash: WE'VE HAD THESE TAX CUTS IN PLACE FOR 10 YEARS, IF THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HELP THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS - WHERE IS ALL THIS HELP AND WHERE ARE THE JOBS? TEN YEARS AND NOTHING. TIME TO GET RID OF THEM FOR THE RICH. THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO BUY THAT 3RD SUMMER HOME. BUT LET'S NOT CRY ANY TEARS FOR THEM.

Government Spending (#1 of 379)

Cartoonists' take on taxes.

We can't support two wars, tax cuts for the rich and an unfunded medicare part D. Our country is going bankrupt and our state and local governments cannot shoulder the burden. There are some places where they are turning off the street lights and unpaving streets (making them gravel) because they are too expensive to maintain. Is this the kind of country we want to become? Where those in China are riding on high speed rails while reading about our streets getting unpaved. We need to get out of these wars. We need to address the trade deficit. We need to stop rewarding corporations that outsource jobs (republicans, are you listening?) We need to cut the bloated pentagon budget (Gates is on the way to doing this - yeah!) We need to stop corporate welfare if they don't keep jobs and pay taxes HERE We need to get the cost of healthcare down - and the public option would have gone a long way to do that. Profit vs non-profit - let me think about that for a millisecond. Hmmm. We need to develop clean, renewable energy and stop importing and paying billions for our oil from countries that hate us. We need to invest in education so that all children get a good education and not just the ones who live in rich districts. We need to make college affordable to all. We are better served by an educated populace. We need to end the tax cuts for the rich. If we don't do these things then the road traveled will be one of gravel. In the dark.

Johann Hari Columnist, London Independent Posted: August 10, 2010 06:42 AM The Slow, Whining Death of British Christianity And now congregation, put your hands together and give thanks, for I come bearing Good News. My country, Britain, is now the most irreligious country on earth. This island has shed superstition faster and more completely than anywhere else. Some 63 percent of us are non-believers, according to an ICM study, while 82 percent say religion is a cause of harmful division. Now, let us stand and sing our new national hymn: Jerusalem was dismantled here/ in England's green and pleasant land. How did it happen? For centuries, religion was insulated from criticism in Britain. First its opponents were burned, then jailed, then shunned. But once there was a free marketplace of ideas, once people could finally hear both the religious arguments and the rationalist criticisms of them, the religious lost the British people. Their case was too weak, their opposition to divorce and abortion and gay people too cruel, their evidence for their claims non-existent. Once they had to rely on persuasion rather than intimidation, the story of British Christianity came to an end. Now that only six percent of British people regularly attend a religious service, it's only natural that we should dismantle the massive amounts of tax money and state power that are automatically given to the religious to wield over the rest of us. It's a necessary process of building a secular state, where all citizens are free to make up their own minds. Yet the opposition to this sensible shift - the separation of church and state Americans have known for centuries - is becoming increasingly unhinged. The Church of England, bewildered by the British people choosing to leave their pews, has only one explanation: Christians are being "persecuted" and "bullied" by a movement motivated by "Christophobia." George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, says Christians are now "second class citizens" and it is only "a small step" to "a religious bar on any employment by Christians". Really? Let's list some of the ways in which Christians, and other religious groups, are given special privileges every day in Britain. Start with the educational system. Every school in Britain is required by law to make its pupils engage every day in "an act of collective worship of a wholly or mainly Christian nature". Yes: Britain is still a nation with enforced prayer. The religious are then handed total control of 36 percent of our state-funded schools, in which to indoctrinate children into their faith alone. These religious schools, paid for by the taxpayer, are disfiguring Britain. I know one reason I grew up without the prejudices of some of my older relatives was because I went to school with kids from every conceivable ethnic and religious group, and I could see they were just like me. A five year old will make friends with anyone, and he'll be much less likely to believe smears against those friends for the rest of their lives. But in Britain today, that mixing is happening less and less. Increasingly, the children of Christians are sent to one side, Jews to another, Muslims to another still, and they never see each other except from the window of their parents' cars. After the race riots in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley in 2001, the official investigations found that faith schools were a major cause. So why keep them? Their defenders say these schools perform better in exams - and at first glance, it seems to be true. On average, they get higher grades. But look again. A number of studies, including by the conservative think thank Civitas, have blown a hole in this claim. They have proven that faith schools systematically screen out children who will be harder to teach: children from poor families, and less bright children. Once you look at how much a school improves the pupils it actually admits, the only real measure of a school's success, it turns out faith schools do less well than other schools - which isn't surprising given they waste so much time teaching them crazy nonsense like Virgin births and Noah's Ark. The British people instinctively know all this: 64 percent want every state school to be neutral when it comes to religion. Special rights for the religious don't stop at the school gates. They automatically get 26 unelected bishops in the House of Lords. Public broadcasters are required by law to give them large amounts of money and time to screen religious propaganda. Jews and Muslims are allowed to ignore the laws on animal cruelty and engage in the barbaric practice of slitting the throats of live animals without numbing them in order to create Kosher and halal meat. And it seems that, in crucial cases, religious figures are virtually exempted from the law. There is now overwhelming evidence that Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope, was involved for over twenty years in an international criminal conspiracy to cover up the rape of children by priests in his Church. (Check out the superb edition of the BBC's Panorama, 'Sex Crimes and the Vatican', for the evidence.) But when he arrives in Britain in September, our politicians will fawn over him, rather than dialling 999. Given all this unearned privilege, how can Christians claim they are in fact being "persecuted"? Here are the cases they offer as "proof". A nurse called Shirley Chaplin turned up to work wearing a crucifix around her neck. Her hospital told her that they were worried the elderly and confused patients she worked with could grab at it, so they said she could pin the crucifix to her uniform instead if she liked. That's it. That's their cause celebre. Oh, and a woman called Theresa Davies who worked in a registry office, but refused to perform civil partnerships for gay couples, so... she was moved to working on reception. In response, Carey and the CofE demand Christians be allowed to break the law requiring them to treat gay people equally when providing a service to the general public - and that any case where a Christian feels discriminated against should be judged by a special court of "sensitive" Christians. If we started allowing religious people to break basic anti-discrimination laws, where would we stop? Until 1975, the Mormon Church said black people didn't have souls. (They only changed their mind the day the Supreme Court ruled this was illegal, and God niftily appeared to their leader that morning and announced blacks were ensouled after all.) Would we let a Mormon registrar refuse to marry black people? Would it be "Mormonophobia" to object? When Lord Chief Justice Laws, who is a Christian himself, ruled the exemptions demanded by Carey would be "irrational, divisive, and arbitrary", he threw an extraordinary tantrum and said Christians might begin to engage in "civil unrest". When I saw Carey make these threats on television, red-faced and rageful, it made me think of a nasty child in the playground who had been beating up the gay kids and spitting at the girls for years and is finally told to stop - only to start bawling that he's the one who is being picked on. As their dusty Churches crumble because nobody wants to go there, the few remaining Christians in Britain will only become more angry and uncomprehending. Let them. We can't stop this hysterical toy-tossing stop us from turning our country into a secular democracy where everyone has the same rights, and nobody is granted special rights just because they claim their ideas come from an invisible supernatural being. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a Holy Lamb of God to carve into kebabs - it's our new national dish. Amen, and hallelujah. This is why we can't allow a specific religion to interject itself into our government.