Cleo's Mom

Creationism is a story, while evolution has facts to back up this "theory". We have the science of fossils, rocks, etc.. to show how things were and how they evolved. And the story of creationism was completely shut down in court in the Dover, PA case where the school board was hijacked by right wing christians who wanted to teach it. It went to court and they lost. Their "experts" were destroyed on the witness stand. Thankfully!

Of course I am not the least bit surprised that you would agree with this, since you support the extremist positions on the right. Did the Women of Color forum exclude white women? Men of color? Was it called Women of Color ONLY as your white forum would have been called? Or was it a forum for women who shared some commonality, like the lesbian forum, the powder room, the men's room, etc..? And all the other forums that narrow down one's interests? There is no need for a White Entertainment television since most of television is white. Name me one prime time network show that features blacks. You have to take a look at this historically. Historically, white people were not discriminated against. Ground zero for them was that all jobs, opportunities, etc.. belonged to white men. Then begrudgingly white women. For the most part people of color were to be relegated to those jobs servicing white people - maids, janitors, etc.. Then after civil rights was passed and blacks had the opportunity to get better jobs and improve their standing it was natural for them to want to organize around their new found status. So what that they have a BET? There's a Lifetime station for women and I don't hear the men complaining. Maybe that's because there are a zillion sports channels.

The War Is Making You Poor Act by Alan Grayson Fri May 21, 2010 at 12:40:43 PM PDT Next week, there is going to be a "debate" in Congress on yet another war funding bill. The bill is supposed to pass without debate, so no one will notice. What George Orwell wrote about in "1984" has come true. What Eisenhower warned us about concerning the "military-industrial complex" has come true. War is a permanent feature of our societal landscape, so much so that no one notices it anymore. But we’re going to change this. Today, we’re introducing a bill called ‘The War Is Making You Poor Act’. The purpose of this bill is to connect the dots, and to show people in a real and concrete way the cost of these endless wars. Next year’s budget allocates $159,000,000,000 to perpetuate the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s enough money to eliminate federal income taxes for the first $35,000 of every American’s income. Beyond that, leaves over $15 billion to cut the deficit. And that’s what this bill does. It eliminates separate funding for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and eliminates federal income taxes for everyone’s first $35,000 of income ($70,000 for couples). Plus it pays down the national debt. The costs of the war have been rendered invisible. There's no draft. Instead, we take the most vulnerable elements of our population, and give them a choice between unemployment and missile fodder. Government deficits conceal the need to pay in cash for the war. We put the cost of both guns and butter on our Chinese credit card. In fact, we don't even put these wars on budget; they are still passed using 'emergency supplemental'. A nine-year ‘emergency’. Let's show Congress the cost of these wars is too much for us. Tell Congress that you like 'The War Is Making You Poor Act'. No, tell Congress you love it. Act now. http://www.TheWarIsMakingYouPoor.com All we are saying is "give peace a chance." We will end these wars. dailykos To those, including all the teabaggers, who keep blaming Pres. Obama for increasing the deficit - we still have to pay for bush's 2 wars, among other things. They don't stop getting funded just because we elected Pres. Obama. Let's see if the teabaggers support this bill. Yeah, right. :thumbup:

Jack Conway, Rand Paul's opponent, responded to this: Kentucky Attorney General and Democratic nominee for Senate Jack Conway released a statement today criticizing Rand Paul for saying that President Obama's comments about BP's role in the Gulf Coast oil spill were "really un-American." In the statement, Conway says, "we need a senator who will hold companies accountable." Here's the full statement: Rand Paul apparently has a deeply held conviction that corporations should be allowed to do what they see fit without oversight or accountability. He even goes so far as to say that that criticizing corporations when they hurt taxpayers and working families - as in the case of the massive BP oil disaster - is 'un-American.' As Attorney General, I've seen how corporations can take advantage of consumers - whether it's oil companies that gouge Kentucky customers after a series of storms or pharmaceutical companies that commit Medicaid fraud. I have a deeply held conviction that we need a senator who will hold companies accountable. We have enough senators in Washington who are looking out for what's best for corporations. My sole focus will be looking out for Kentucky's taxpayers and families.

That's right. Take down the confederate flag. The south lost, the United States won. Move on. NAACP Wants to Remove Confederate Flag from State Capital January 22nd, 2010 The NAACP will expand its campaign to remove the confederate flag from South Carolina State Capital Building. During a Martin Luther King Day rally for health care and education, NAACP head Benjamin Jealous said the confederate flag is a symbol or racism and intimidation that has no business on state capital grounds

Being a racist and how you manifest that racism in a public way are two different things. A business owner can be a racist but I don't support his denying entrance to a person based on a civil rights category. And historically, racism against white people has not been a problem.

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." This also includes the confederate flag.

This would be very popular with the Arizona white establishment.

Please show where I called you a racist. Also, Jim Crow Laws allowed a business to legally segregate. To let them do so now would be no different. You are saying that you are okay with a private restaurant owner being allowed to only serve whites. I am not. And I really disagree with you that they might lose money. I imagine that there are some really racist areas where if the owner refused entrance to blacks or latinos that the whites would flock to that business. Here's what Rand Paul and similar thinking people would be fine with:

Joining a union is different than going into a restaurant. There are a list of qualifications for joining a union. I couldn't join either one of the unions to which you refer. But a public establishment, privately owned, does not have the right in my view to refuse to allow/serve people based on one of the protected categories in the civil rights bill. Whether or not they would lose money or go out of business is a matter of debate and frankly irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is whether we as a country want to go back to the Jim Crow laws and apparantly you are okay with that. I am not.

Rand Paul, the gift that keeps on giving by pollchecker Fri May 21, 2010 at 06:59:46 AM PDT You would think after inserting his foot into his mouth less than 2 days after winning the GOP Kentucky primary for Senate, Rand Paul would learn to choose his words a bit more wisely. So far he has not backed down from his assertion that private business or home owners should not be covered under the 1964 civil rights act. But if that is NOT enough, now he is at it again. Rand Paul is a clear illustration of EVERYTHING that is wrong with the tea baggers. And if that is not bad enough, he is just another example of what is very, very wrong with the Republican Party. Paul says Obama's criticism of the oil company sounds like an attack on business and "really un-American." Really, Rand? You think that it is un-American to call a liar a liar? Your party doesn't seem to have a problem calling other people liars when they are telling the truth? BP has the worst safety record of any company in the oil and gas business. THAT IS A FACT. I guess you don't remember that 15 people were killed at a refinery owned by BP in 2005. 15 PEOPLE RAND! That's 15 sons or daughters, 15 possible fathers or mothers. And why were these people killed? Because BP put profits over safety. Fast forward 5 years later. Today we have 11 more people dead for the same darn reasons. BP put profits over safety! That's been made very clear by people who were actually there. What you are basically saying Rand is that you believe in a country that should be ruled by BIG BUSINESS whose only goal is to make money and drive their stock prices up. What you are saying Rand, is that you basically support all of the failed policies of the Bush/Cheney administration only you want to take it farther. What you are saying Rand is that people don't matter, only businesses matter. Perhaps you should read up in your History books Rand or even a dictionary. Because if you do, I believe you will find that these tea party ideas you are representing border very closely on Fascism. And we all know who was the main Fascist in History. Oh, I forgot, the tea partiers want to rewrite History. Perhaps you should read Orwell's 1984. It sounds dangerously close to what you are advocating for our country. I would say shut up Rand, but the more you talk, the more you show the nation the reality behind the tea party. And the more you do that, the more you help your opponent in November. Hell, the more you talk, the more you help the entire Democratic Party. And the more the GOP embraces you and your outlandish and entirely inappropriate statements, the more normal, every day people see you for what you really are. Yes, Rand, you are the perfect gift for the Dems.....the gift that keeps on giving and giving and giving. You and your comrades will most likely give the Dems the opportunity to retain that majority in the Senate and that's a good thing. It's bad enough that the GOP wants to help those liars at BP. But to call anyone "unAmerican", especially the White House because they challenge this disgraceful companies lies, well, I'd like to see you say that to the faces of those families who have lost loved ones at either that Texas City refinery or on that Horizon well. No honeymoon for you Rand. Not when you keep opening your mouth and disgracing our country, your party and your family with statements like that. Keep it up. We Dems couldn't do better to get reelected in November if we tried. dailykos Yes, Rand Paul was whining today that after a big win- "where is my honeymoon" he asks, of course blaming the democrats, liberals and rachel maddow for asking questions about his positions. Heaven forbid that he be asked questions that might show him for what he is. Hey Rand, this politics is for the big boys, if you can't take it - quit, but don't blame the liberals or democrats for your extremist positions. It is people like you that we have to keep from hijacking our country.

Let Rand Paul keep digging himself into a grave with his continued explanations and criticisms. We don't even need to offer him a shovel. Just sit back and watch the self-implosion.

Friday, May 21, 2010 Actually, their approach is to just ignore problems, disguised as "smaller government". LOL That's why Pres. Obama has such a big mess to clean up from the bush administration.

We see that the thinking of the tea party and their yapping about too much government includes: -no government laws against private business discrimination -no government laws mandating private businesses accomodate the disabled -no government laws mandating private housing from discriminating. So, I guess we can extrapolate that to mean -no government laws about food and drug safety -no government laws about workplace safety SO TO THE TEA PARTY I SAY: NO thank you. I'll take all this "government" in the interest of my safety. You, in the meantime can purchase your meds, foods, pet food and toys from China, or better yet, from the back of a van (hey, cheaper and no government "interference")

When BP was testifying to get the license to drill offshore, their claims included that they had the means, equipment and technology to contain and clean up any potential oil spill. Now that the worst has happened, their claims are that they really don't have tried and tested technology to contain and clean up this oil spill. So, Sen. Barbara Boxer is looking into filing charges against BP for lying to congress.

I know. It's funny watching the various republicans try to explain if they support his views. " His views? Ahem, I haven't had time to review them sufficiently...yada yada yada." But he's what they got in Kentucky. So, we'll see if they rally around him for November. Between Rand Paul and the republican sex scandals and hypocrisy, I am glad I have a front row seat. You can't get this kind of entertainment on programmed tv.

Here's further clarification about Rand Paul and his views of adaptations for disabled: Rand Paul: Let's say you have a local office and you have a two story office and one of your workers is handicapped. Should you not be allowed maybe to offer them an office on the first floor, or should you be forced to put in a hundred thousand dollar elevator? Sounds reasonable, right? In fact, it's so reasonable that the ADA contains an exception for that very situation. Elevators are not required in: (a) private facilities that are less than three stories or that have less than 3000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider, or another type of facility as determined by the Attorney General; or ( public facilities that are less than three stories and that are not open to the general public if the story above or below the accessible ground floor houses no more than five persons and is less than 500 square feet. Examples may include, but are not limited to, drawbridge towers and boat traffic towers, lock and dam control stations, and train dispatching towers. So Rand Paul opposes a law because he believes it imposes a mandate that it does not in fact impose. What an idiot. dailykos

This hits the target right on.

I just saw a video in which Stossell says he agrees with Rand Paul that a private business can discriminate in any way they choose. I'm glad I was sitting down when I heard that. What a shock!

KY-Sen: Rand Paul closes the case on himself by Jed Lewison Thu May 20, 2010 at 02:15:22 PM PDT I think it's time we let Rand Paul speak for himself, in his own words: A recent Daily News editorial supported the Federal Fair Housing Act. At first glance, who could object to preventing discrimination in housing? Most citizens would agree that it is wrong to deny taxpayer-financed, “public” housing to anyone based on the color of their skin or the number of children in the household. But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual’s beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and Breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn’t want noisy children? Absolutely not. Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate. SNIP A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. Paul wrote those words in a 2002 letter to the Bowling Green Daily News in protest of an editorial the paper had written in favor of the Fair Housing Act dailykos So, if at the end of a tiring day driving, a black couple comes across a bed & breakfast to lodge for the night, Rand Paul is okay with the owners having a sign at their door: No Blacks Allowed. Like I said, take a good look at him and his positions: He is the face of the tea party movement. But by all means, find ways to defend him, if you agree with his positions.

John Stossell? Fox news? Yeah, like they're "fair and balanced":lol: . I have no doubt the right wing is going to try to backpedal, soft-pedal, repackage and then try to sell what Rand has said but it's still the same message: He believes private businesses have the right to discriminate. Period.

Well, here are some things said by people who should be considered more "mainstream" in your view and these views are accepted by elected republicans by virtue of not being denounced. How smart are they?: Newt Gingrich and Rand Paul Jump the Shark Here we go again. A prominent Republican likens President Obama to Adolf Hitler, and the Republican leadership remains embarrassingly, shockingly silent. According to former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, the President's "secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did." This was not a slip of the tongue. Gingrich has stood by his offensive, morally outrageous comparison on at least two national television programs. And the reaction from House Minority leader John Boehner or his Senate counterpart, Mitch McConnell, or the ever garrulous Dick and Liz Cheney? So far, not even a murmur of disapproval. Last year, it was Rush Limbaugh who inflamed the Republican base with his irresponsible analogies. Among Limbaugh's gems: "Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook;" "Obama is asking citizens to rat each other out like Hitler did;" the president "is sending out his brownshirts to head up opposition to genuine American citizens who want no part of what Barack Obama stands for and is trying to stuff down our throats;" and "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." At the same time, Rand Paul, the new darling of the Republican right, the newly minted Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky, proudly tells us that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he apparently believes that privately owned restaurants should be allowed to discriminate against African Americans, or, presumably any other minority group. And tellingly, there has been no public outrage from the GOP establishment. Joe Scarborough, a former conservative Republican Member of Congress, has roundly denounced both Gingrich and Paul on his Morning Joe show on MSNBC, but where are the hapless Michael Steele, and Indiana Representative Mike Pence, and Mitt Romney? Once again, they allow the vitriol to be spewed out in the hope that it will sufficiently poison the body politic in their favor. Senator Jeff Sessions (R. Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has no problem accusing Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, falsely as it happens, of having "violated the law" when, while Dean at Harvard Law School, she continued the practice of restricting military recruitment in light of the US armed forces' discrimination against openly gay members. But Senator Sessions has not, so far at least, addressed either Newt Gingrich's or Rand Paul's extremist rhetoric. Why not? Colin Powell explained on CNN that his problem with the GOP was that when Limbaugh "says things that I consider to be completely outrageous, and I respond to it, I would like to see other members of the party do likewise. But they don't." The same appears to be true when it comes to Gingrich or Paul. Where is House Republican Whip Eric Cantor? Does he agree with Paul that a hotel or restaurant should be allowed to bar me or him because we are Jewish? Does he agree with Gingrich's comparison of President Obama to Hitler and Stalin, two notorious anti-Semites? And if he disagrees with either or both of these Republican luminaries, why hasn't he spoken up? As we approach both the Kagan confirmation hearings and the mid-term Congressional elections, we must keep the broader political context in mind. Political disagreement is legitimate. Fomenting fear and hatred, or wanting to turn the clock back to the bad old days of Jim Crow and segregated lunch counters is not. huffington post

And as I've said repeatedly, ground zero for these people and their common denominator to a person is their hatred of Pres. Obama.

No, these are just your average teabaggers, most with signs and they are asked about their signs or what they are protesting. They love glenn beck. They hate Obama. And BTW - what kind of job do you have that allows for so much free internet time and posting? Just curious.

You interpreted my original observation to be about the teabaggers so you need to watch this video to see how much they know about what they are protesting. Their ignorance is stunning. EVERYONE ELSE ON HERE SHOULD WATCH THIS. And before you start bashing it as some liberal "gotcha" video - I think the interviewer was just asking some simple, fair questions and making some clarifications. No one seemed to object to his questions.