Cleo's Mom

C'mon pattygreen, did ya really think we wouldn't check? Duh!! Retrofit, Energy License Not Required The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act in June 2009. A chain e-mail that has been forwarded to us repeatedly in recent days says that the bill would require homeowners to retrofit their houses to meet new energy standards, and obtain a license from the Environmental Protection Agency before they could sell a home. Don’t believe it. The claims are false. In fact, we said last summer that claims that the bill requires such things were false in... Click to Read the Full Post factcheck.org Are you really that gullible or just another neocon who likes to spread lies and cause trouble?

Thanks, BJean. You get an A+. Very interesting reading. I don't live in the town where I was born. I am in the next county over so I really don't run into people from my childhood. I think my grade school teachers would all be dead by now anyway. I live in the Pgh. area but not in its county and that makes a world of difference politically. My county is very redneck and despite a 2-1 democratic registration advantage votes republican. Being the president of the democratic club is a challenge, as well as a county committewoman. I have to travel into the Pgh. area and county to see another Obama bumper sticker. That is where my daughter and her husband (and new baby -yeah) live. And I always kid her about that. We go shopping and I will see cars with Obama bumper stickers. If I see one where I live I assume they are lost or visiting. LOL. But the whole state of PA has been summed up this way: Pgh. in the west, Philly in the east and Arkansas in the middle. A conservative state to be sure, but it did go blue in 2008. Pittsburgh is a city with a small town mentality. Not very progressive. A liberal woman who had a talk radio show here for a while, who came from Milwaukee, said she had cultural shock when she came here - where were all the women in power positions she wanted to know, etc.. My husband and I went on a vacation to Colorado in 2000. Fort Collins. I loved it. I committed a major breach of Pgh. vacationing rules that says you must go to the beach each summer. I hate the beach. I loved their weather, blue skies, hot but not humid, like it is in Pgh. And you do NOT come to Pgh. for the weather. Grey, rainy, grey, snowy, grey everything. And that includes a huge aging population - one of the nation's largest. Anyway, thanks for the interesting read. Why do you move so often? Jobs?

BJean: I like what the president said about corporate America. Let's just wait and see if it causes any improvement. I have my doubts but I hope and pray that I am wrong. I like what he said about the republicans turning a surplus into a deficit and how they only have two solutions to every problems: (1) more tax cuts for the rich (2) fewer regulations for corporations

BJean: Ed Schultz just wrote a book called "Killer Politics" - it's on my list to buy. It's about how the middle class is being destroyed in this country. But as an aside - as someone who has never lived more than 15 miles from where I was born, I am interested in all the places you have lived. Would you mind listing them and maybe telling what you liked and didn't like about each. You will be graded on content, punctuation, and spelling. LOL. :biggrin:

My third mantra: And these are the people some of you want more of in congress? :biggrin: House Democrats are home for a long Memorial Day break with a gift-wrapped wedge issue delivered just in time for district campaigning. One of their final actions before adjourning late Friday was passing a measure that would strip tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas by a 215-204 vote. talkingpointsmemo.com The Grand Outsourcing Party. Expect Dems to run on this come election time. More brilliance below the fold. That's right, in the pursuit of that shiny object of tax cuts for Corporations (even Corporations that outsource jobs!) every Republican House Rep except Joesph Cao of Louisiana and the average 35 Blue Dogs decided that companies that outsource jobs amidst near 10% unemployment is more of something we MUST have, and they MUST be rewarded with tax cuts! After standing with the insurance companies, the big banks, wall street and the oil companies, now it's time for the GOP to stand with those who outsource american jobs. But hey, they support the 2nd amendment and oppose abortion. Tell me again how that pays the bills?

More republican hypocrisy: 2000: Rep. David Vitter introduces a bill to limit oil companies' criminal liability . 2010: Sen. David Vitter's statement: "I thank U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for taking steps to open criminal and civil investigations into the causes of the oil spill."

FAMILY OF BP VICTIM FIRES BACK AT BP CEO - Charlie Melancon started a petition calling for BP CEO Tony Hayward, who said he just wants his "life back", to be fired. One man named Keith signed the petition and added: "My son died aboard the Transocean Deepwater Horizon. That's whose life Tony Hayward ought to want back." http://bit.ly/a5hgZJ The petition signer may have been Keith Jones, who has testified before Congress about the disaster, but a HuffPost Hill attempt to reach him was unsuccessfull. His testimony: http://bit.ly/dA4iRV So, while BP CEO "wants his life back" - the wh**es for corporate america - palin, limbaugh, krauthammer, etc.. will try to divert attention against this corporate caused disaster by blaming environmentalists. :biggrin:

The Mon River is a hop, skip and jump from my house. But the corporate supporting republicans always slam the environmentalists. I wonder what they would do if they could no longer drink their water? Why, they would ask the government to "do something" - that's what!!

That really nails it. Now we can sit back and watch the republicans stand with the oil companies just as they have stood with the insurance industry, the banking industry and wall street. And this brings me to my third mantra: And these are the people some want to elect more of? :confused:

There is a difference between natural disasters (Katrina) and man made ones (BP oil spill). And the government wouldn't have to clean up after man-made (read: corporate) disasters if they had STRICT REGULATIONS, with strict enforcement and big, painful fines. THAT'S the government's job - to keep us safe from the abuses of the corporate world. My second mantra: Regulate, baby, Regulate!!!

Typical neocon idea that if no PERSON lives in the area of an oil spill it is less severe. What about the ocean, marine and land animals? Not to mention other aspects of our delicate ecology. I guess they don't count.

I don't care what the reason is for BP drilling where they did. The accident was THEIR fault, not the environmentalists. They lied about their ability to contain or solve a oil leak like this one. THEY LIED. Their license was awarded based on these lies. Geez! What don't you get? Fault: BP: 100% Environmentalists: 0% Got it?

This is really hysterical because our supreme court now is the most conservative, activist supreme court we have ever had.They are legislating from the bench. They made corporations people that will allow them to buy elections, for example. They are slowly stripping people of the rights won over many years.

I'm voting Republican because I LOVE this war, but have never actually served in combat! I'm voting Republican because I campaigned on family values, even though there's a dead male hooker buried under the concrete in the floor of our shed! I'm voting Republican because I believe that borrowing money to deficit finance a tax cut for rich people in the middle of a two front war, which we're also deficit financing, is sound conservative fiscal policy! I'm voting Republican because I believe Jesus personally put Bush in the Whitehouse, and tucks him in every single night! Why, I could believe in flying spaghetti monsters, and if you didn't yield before that belief, I could become offended to the point of being mortified that you don't respect my core values. THAT'S why I'm voting Republican! Well, on refelction, I guess the real reason I'm voting Republican, is that Koolaid is f*****g delicious.

Things stupid people believe and therefore vote republican (an oldie but goodie and still valid): Things Republicans Believe 1. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy. 2. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet. 3. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business. 4. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s and John Kerry did in the 1970s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant. 5. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt. 6. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart. 7. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism. 8. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools. 9. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches and to allow them to abuse prisoners of war while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay. 10. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican. 11. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex. 12. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery. 13. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq. 14. Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness. 15. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India. 16. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation. 17. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton. 18. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money. 19. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion. What he did to prisoners was wrong and was justification for launching a war against his country but when we do it, an apology will suffice. 20. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Congress is trying to pass wall street and big banking reform. There are 2000 well paid corporate lobbyists in the hallways of congress and 60 who are there for the people - who are all volunteers. We, the people, are up against they, the big money. Wonder who will win or lose? Hmmmm.

I heard Pres. Obama say that he takes responsibility for the oil spill. I wonder why krauthammer didn't hear that? Oh, I know, he must watch fox news. The republicans and conservative media are trying hard to make this Obama's Katrina. But these are two different things. bush was literally eating cake with mccain while people were drowning in New Orleans. Remember "you're doing a helluva job, Brownie". Brownie got fired. Pres. Obama has been on top of this oil spill since day one. The government does not have a "fix the private industry oil spill" agency. The technology to fix this lies with private industry and they should bear ALL the cost of this fix and clean up. But the republicans in congress only want BP to have a $75 million liability. Are you kidding me? They made nearly $250 billion last year. But the republicans are standing with big oil, not the american people hurt by this. What a shock! :confused: And if we are going to bring up memos - let's bring up the August 2001 entitled: Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States. That memo was ignored as bush cut brush that month in Crawford County. Let them eat cake!!!

This BS is straight out of dumba$$ limbaugh's drug induced babbling - that's right - blame the environmentalist for BP's F up :confused:. Let's not blame BP who told congress (when they applied for the license) that they had the means, technology and ability to fix any accident like the one that happened. So, they lie, the accident happens and then they're like - well, no, we actually don't have the means, technology or ability to fix this accident. But blame the environmentalists! Unbelievable!! Well, actually not unbelievable considering the source.

Wow! You really dodged my post big time - baby seals, 14th amendment, slaves, and of course the ever present bible quote? I guess that's what you do when my point is logical and yours isn't. Oh, and I'm pretty sure we liberals would oppose the clubbing of born babies.

"The political world created whole new rules for Barack Obama" Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 07:50:55 AM PDT President Obama was schedule to participate in Memorial Day ceremony at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, Ill., but a huge storm canceled the event. When he returned in the evening to Washington, he addressed members of the military and their families in an improvised short event at Andrews Air Force base. None of this really matters, because he committed the unthinkable crime of skipping the ceremony at Arlington and chose to go to the - apparently not as sacred - "Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery" in Illinois. More under the cut (Photos too). This ridiculous manufactured controversy is hardly the first and surely not the last during Mr. Obama's presidency. Steve Benen had a terrific piece over the weekend, proving how "for a year and a half, the political world seems to have created whole new rules for Obama, which aren't applied to others -- and haven't even been applied to other presidents". Few examples: * Teleprompters: This trend of characterizing routine developments as controversial started very early in the Obama presidency. Every modern president has used teleprompters, but Republicans and the media thought it was hilarious and wildly important when Obama did the same thing. * Bowing: Several presidents have been photographed bowing to foreign heads of state, but Republicans and the media thought it was absolutely scandalous when Obama did the same thing when meeting leaders where bowing is customary. * Talking to school kids: Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush spoke to school children in national addresses, even taking a little time to push their political agendas. When Obama delivered a speech encouraging kids to do well in school, Republicans freaked out; Fox News compared the president to Saddam Hussein; and the New York Times literally ran a front-page story about it. * Czars: For a half-century, presidents have relied on so-called "czars" for various policy areas. By one count, George W. Bush had 36 czar positions filled by 46 people during his two terms. No one cared. Obama's use of czars became the subject of months of media scrutiny, and even congressional hearings in response to Republican apoplexy. * Oval Office attire: Several modern presidents have been seen in the Oval Office without wearing a suit jacket. When Obama did it, Republicans ran to the press to complain, and the media actually published pieces on the subject. * Criticizing partisan media: White House complaints about unfair media coverage are as old as the republic. When the Obama White House noted what is plainly true about Fox News -- it's a Republican outlet -- the media went a little berserk, with the Washington Post and NPR characterizing the administration's criticism as "Nixonian." * Reconciliation: Republican policymakers have relied on reconciliation to get around filibusters for decades. When Obama recommended the same tactic for health care, the GOP pretended it was an outrageous assault on the political process, and the media pretended Republicans' cries were legitimate. * Industry bailouts: Government bailouts of struggling American industries and major companies have been common for decades. When Obama rescued GM, it was used as an example of his purported desire to a communist dictator. * Campaign intervention: Every president has had a hand in campaign activities, with several presidents offering jobs to candidates to get them out of various races. When the Obama White House intervened in Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary -- offering a House member an unpaid advisory gig -- the media found it fascinating and Republicans called for the FBI and a special prosecutor to intervene. /// More On this matter, for a change, some parts of the MSM did their job. CBS' Peter Maer: ....Let's set the record straight. Mr. Obama will participate today in a ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, Illinois, about 50 miles south of Chicago. He is not the first president to be away from Washington on a patriotic holiday. The critics were either ignorant of the facts or they failed to mention the 2007 Veterans Day ceremony when Vice President Dick Cheney spoke while President George W. Bush observed the holiday in Texas. Vice President Dan Quayle laid the wreath at Arlington on Memorial Day, 1992. I recall covering President George H.W. Bush, a distinguished World War II vet, as he marked the holiday that year at his favorite vacation spot, Kennebunkport, Maine, where he spoke to a veterans group. Back in 1983, a Defense Department official laid the Memorial Day wreath at Arlington when Ronald Reagan was at a G-7 Summit meeting in Williamsburg, Virginia. /// snip Some of Mr. Obama's conservative critics have also used his Memorial Day plan to question his commitment to the military. Like his predecessors, Mr. Obama has expressed deep feelings about the troops in both words and deeds, often with as little fanfare as the presidency allows. Like other presidents, he meets privately with the families of the fallen....Unlike other presidents, he paid a middle of the night somber visit to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to witness the return of dead soldiers. Perhaps the most eloquent statement on Mr. Obama's stand on the military comes from Gold Star Mother Carol Barbieri of Maryland. Her son, Army Specialist and paratrooper Thomas "TJ" Barbieri, was killed in Iraq in 2006. TJ's brothers Stephen and Matthew were visiting his grave at Arlington on Veterans Day last year when Mr. Obama stopped to pay his respects. He asked about their loved one and expressed his appreciation for the sacrifice. Responding to e-mailed questions last week, Mrs. Barbieri told me the family was grateful that the president "took the time to honor the memory and sacrifice of TJ, along with those of all of the others laid to rest alongside our son." She noted it was apparently the first time that any president visited the graves in Arlington's Section 60, the burial place of many troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Asked about the president's decision to visit the Illinois cemetery on Memorial Day, Mrs. Barbieri said she and her husband Tom "both feel that there is no exclusivity for bravery and valor." She noted, "Our heroes are interred all over the nation. The President of the United States should be remembering and honoring the men and women who have fought for this country. It doesn't matter where he does that as long as he never forgets them." Poignant words to ponder for people on all points of the political spectrum, especially on this Memorial Day, 2010 dailykos I just file this under more republican hypocrisy. Too bad they can't somehow collect all that republican hypocrisy and use it to plug the oil leak. Sure is enough of it to go around!

IF, and that's a big IF, you are concerned about saving fetuses then you have to be willing to give up something for that to happen. Yes, actually concede a point. I just showed you a study that showed that free birth control reduced abortions. So you have to be willing to give up your rigid, punitive view of this issue and be willing to allow for free birth control. You can't have it all your way. The bottom line for you should be the saving of the fetuses. Period. NOTHING ELSE. Get it? NOTHING ELSE. So, if it takes free birth control, your attitude should be "well, then so be it, that's a small price to pay for all those lives I claim to care about" But that isn't what you care about - it's all personal responsibility, laws, breaking the laws, punishment, consequences and jail. You have zero credibility on this issue so just quit talking about it.

Why should it be for you? Because YOU'RE the one who claims to want to save fetuses. Aren't you? If that is the case and free birth control would say reduce unwanted pregnancies by 50% and abortions by 25% wouldn't you support that? And if not, why not? I want women to have access to safe and legal abortions. I don't want desperate women to have to seek out unsafe abortions. Here's another study that you can ignore (and it's not even done by our government - gasp!): Submitted by Deborah Mitchell on 2010-03-15 All about: When Norwegian researchers offered free contraception for one year to young women living in Tromso and Hamar in Norway, the abortion rate in those cities was cut in half. Could free contraception be an effective way to reduce abortion rates in other cities around the world? Norwegian Contraception Study The Norwegian project, which was conducted on behalf of the Directorate of Health and by SINTEF Technology and Society (The Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research), included 3,500 women ages 20 to 24. This is the age group with the highest abortion rate in Norway. Four cities were included in the project: two where women received free contraception and two used for comparison. The investigators found that 93 percent of the Norwegian women studied reported using hormonal contraception, and that the number of women who used this form of birth control did not increase during the study. What improved, however, was their continuity of use. While the women tended to skip taking their hormonal contraception when they had to purchase it themselves and cost was a factor, they were more likely to not miss their doses when the contraception was free. Better compliance with contraception use leads to a reduced chance of pregnancy. In Tromso and Hamar, the use of long-term contraceptive methods such as IUDs and hormonal spirals more than doubled. These methods are more expensive than the Pill as a one-time investment. According to Anita Oren, research manager of the study, “Women themselves say that they are very pleased to have the freedom to choose the type of product they prefer, irrespective of price.” The contraceptive methods offered in the study included the Pill, contraceptive injections, Patches, vaginal rings, IUDs, implants, hormone spirals, and copper spirals. Abortion Around the World The Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that advances sexual and reproductive health worldwide through education, research, and policy analysis, notes that nearly 50 percent of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and 40 percent of these are ended by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) in the US end in abortion. In 2005, an estimated 1.2 million abortions were done in the United States. Globally, 46 million babies die from abortion, or about one baby every two seconds, according to the website Bound4life. More than half (56%) of all women who are having abortions between the ages of 15 and 44 are in their twenties. It appears that offering free contraception to young women is an effective way to cut the abortion rate. In 2002, free hormone-based birth control was offered to Norwegian women ages 16 to 19, and abortion rates declined dramatically. When the one-year project was over, young women were offered reduced-rate contraception, and the number of abortions began to climb again. If offering free contraception works in Norway, it seems entirely possible that it could work in other places around the world. There appears to be workable solution to unintended pregnancies and abortions. Cities hand out free needles to drug users, why not contraception? SOURCES: Bound4life Guttmacher Institute SINTEF Technology & Society, Mar. 13, 2010

On March 25, 1911, 146 employees of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company in New York City--mostly female Jewish immigrants--perished when fire engulfed their factory. Death came in many hideous ways: Some workers were trampled to death in the panic. Others suffocated on the smoke-filled ninth floor. More than 50 chose to jump to their deaths rather than burn once they discovered the emergency doors had been locked by their employer to keep them from leaving work early. Though nearly forgotten today, the Triangle Shirtwaist fire was responsible for many fire safety regulations and labor laws that exist today. I challenge anyone who supports Rand Paul and his political philosophy of anti-union and anti-government regulations of private businesses to watch this video and say he's right.

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom Did you not read the study I posted where it showed that making abortion illegal does NOT reduce the number of abortions? Of course since it doesn't support your pre-conceived notions, you won't accept it. Study my butt! It was probably something the government just NEEDED to spend our money on I don't need no study to tell me that if abortions were illegal, there would be less of them. Of course you don't believe it because you NEVER let the facts interfere with your wrong conclusions/opinions. At that's just what they are - opinions and they don't count for squat!! On top of that - they just sound plain stupid not to mention immature. Only by assuming that the unborn are not fully human does that argument work. If the unborn are not fully human, then the pro-choice advocate has a legitimate concern, just as one would have in overturning a law forbidding appendicitis operations if countless people were needlessly dying of both appendicitis and illegal operations. But if the unborn are fully human, this pro-choice argument is tantamount to saying that because people die or are harmed while killing other people, the state should make it safe for them to do so. !Not every woman can afford birth control (Yes, they can, just skip ordering pizza tonight. It's all about priorities!)Another stupid, immature opinion. All those teenage girls and single moms are rolling in money. oh, I know, then she shouldn't have sex - that's a mature, realistic attitude ) and not all birth control works 100%. And it is not readily available to all women contemplating sex, especially young girls. Like I said, if you really wanted to "save babies" then you wouldn't care about the cost of providing free birth control to women of all ages - but it's not about that. These are 2 seperate issues. saving babies and giving handouts. Babies should be saved because it's the right thing to do. But why should I, or any taxpayer, have to PAY to keep you from creating someone to murder?! Because saving "babies" should always trump cost if that's what it's about, but it isn't. Huh? Why? I think you sould pay for your own birth control, just like I think you should pay for your own haircut, car, Dr. visit, house, etc. These are not two separate issues. Government paying for birth control that could reduce unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions is only two dots to connect. But apparantely that is too difficult for you. The saving lives should trump the cost of free birth control to taxpayers, but not for someone like you. If it were about saving babies it wouldn't be about laws, illegal abortions, consequences, jail, etc. It would be about - what can I do to reduce the number of abortions? Free prescription birth control for women regardless of age could reduce unwanted pregnancies? Then I support that. Sex education that provides students with truthful, correct information about sex and birth control and STD's could reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies? Well, I would support that. But of course, you would NEVER support either of these things, because like I said it's about punishment. It's a punitive attitude you have. But like I said, it's not about that, it's all a very condemning, and I might add a snotty, superior attitude toward women who have unplanned pregnancies. You anti-abortionists want it all your way. No abortions, no birth control (unless you give it your okay), no sex outside of marriage (like that's realisitc ) - there's no room for allowing for human elements - what real, actual humans do and the situations they find themselves in. Oh, no, they must act according to the RIGID RULES OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!! Just another one of your stupid, blah, blah, blah posts. Move on pattygreen or come up with some new material. This is getting old. And why don't you answer Devana's question - huh?

Did you not read the study I posted where it showed that making abortion illegal does NOT reduce the number of abortions? Of course since it doesn't support your pre-conceived notions, you won't accept it. Not every woman can afford birth control (oh, I know, then she shouldn't have sex - that's a mature, realistic attitude :thumbup:) and not all birth control works 100%. And it is not readily available to all women contemplating sex, especially young girls. Like I said, if you really wanted to "save babies" then you wouldn't care about the cost of providing free birth control to women of all ages - but it's not about that. The saving lives should trump the cost of free birth control to taxpayers, but not for someone like you. If it were about saving babies it wouldn't be about laws, illegal abortions, consequences, jail, etc. It would be about - what can I do to reduce the number of abortions? Free prescription birth control for women regardless of age could reduce unwanted pregnancies? Then I support that. Sex education that provides students with truthful, correct information about sex and birth control and STD's could reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies? Well, I would support that. But of course, you would NEVER support either of these things, because like I said it's about punishment. It's a punitive attitude you have. But like I said, it's not about that, it's all a very condemning, and I might add a snotty, superior attitude toward women who have unplanned pregnancies. You anti-abortionists want it all your way. No abortions, no birth control (unless you give it your okay), no sex outside of marriage (like that's realisitc :smile2:) - there's no room for allowing for human elements - what real, actual humans do and the situations they find themselves in. Oh, no, they must act according to the RIGID RULES OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!!