Cleo's Mom

You're right. As I've said in previous posts, the system under bush worked very well for these people. They are the defenders of the status quo. They got tax cuts, healthcare through their employer and had a president who talked tough, started wars, etc. But I still believe they are just phonies. They talk about spending, the deficit and healthcare. The healthcare is paid for but they talk about repealing it. Why don't they talk about repealing medicare part D - a HUGE unfunded mandate costing about a trillion $$ over 10 years? If their protests are about deficits and spending then they would be addressing this, as well as the two unfunded wars and two unfunded tax cuts to the rich. But you don't see them addressing these issues, which is why I will continue to maintain that these issues are not the real reason for the impetus of this movement. It is their hatred of Pres. Obama and it started even before he was elected. As I have posted many times before, corporate welfare is a huge drain on our economy and the middle class has to pay for what the corporations don't. But it's easier to pick on the poor because they don't have paid lobbyists like corporate america does to make sure that their gravy train stays that way. The poor don't have a voice. Yeah, it's all about the single mother on welfare and not the big bank CEO cheat who has 5 homes and a golden parachute. :thumbup:

Actually, they aren't paying more in taxes under Obama than bush unless they are in the 5% top wage earners who didn't get a tax cut. But I've been listening today to the news about the profile of the teabaggers: they're mostly white, mostly male, mostly republican, mostly middle aged, more educated than average american and making more money than the average american. In other words, they're angry, white republican men who make a good income, have healthcare and don't want anyone else to have what they have. They benefited from taxes for schools, hospitals, roads, education but want to deny that to the next generation. But mostly, as I have said before- Ground zero for this group is their hatred of Pres. Obama and having a black man in the white house. Everything beyond that is just a smoke screen.

Here's corporate welfare - why aren't the nut-teas yapping about this? HOUSTON -- As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do--that is, if they pay taxes at all. The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion. Avoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%. How did this happen? It's complicated. GE's tax return is the largest the IRS deals with each year--some 24,000 pages if printed out. Its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission weighs in at more than 700 pages. Inside you'll find that GE in effect consists of two divisions: General Electric Capital and everything else. The everything else--maker of engines, power plants, TV shows and the like--would have paid a 22% tax rate if it was a standalone company. It's GE Capital that keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. (posting a $6.5 billion loss in 2009), and make lots of money overseas (a $4.3 billion gain). Not only do the U.S. losses balance out the overseas gains, but GE can defer taxes on that overseas income indefinitely. The timing of big deductions for depreciation in GE Capital's equipment leasing business also provides a tax benefit, as will loan losses left over from the credit crunch. But it's the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us. It only makes sense that multinationals "put costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries," says Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries," says Hodge. In contrast, China's rate is just 25%; Ireland's is 12.5%. Corporations are getting smarter, not just about doing more business in low-tax countries, but in moving their more valuable assets there as well. That means setting up overseas subsidiaries, then transferring to them ownership of long-lived, often intangible but highly profitable assets, like patents and software. As a result, figures tax economist Martin Sullivan, companies are keeping some $28 billion a year out of the clutches of the U.S. Treasury by engaging in so-called transfer pricing arrangements, where, say, Microsoft's ( MSFT - news - people ) overseas subsidiaries license software to its U.S. parent company in return for handsome royalties (that get taxed at those lower overseas rates). All of this lost revenue (taxes) amounts to corporate welfare and it costs every one of us.

Those on the right are always defending and praising the glories of the private sector. This is where the REAL jobs are created, they say. Well, the following shows how the Fortune 500's profits are way up for 2009, so WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Well, my answer to that is - the reason their profits are up is because they have laid off so much of their workforce - forcing the remainder to do more work for the same money or they've sent the jobs overseas: Amazingly, as consumers struggle, U.S. corporations are staging a nearly unprecedented comeback that's largely escaping notice. The gargantuan, dispiriting job cuts that seem to dominate the news have also been the spur for an epic resurgence in profits. For 2009, the Fortune 500 lifted earnings 335%, to $391 billion, a $301 billion jump that's the second largest in the list's 56-year history, approaching the increase in the robust recovery of 2003. For last year the 500 raised their return on sales from less than 1% to 4%. That's close to the list's 4.7% historical average. from: CNN

It's no wonder so many americans are woefully misinformed about things considering where they get their news. The following comes as no suprise to me about the nut-tea party: Poll: Tea partiers fear socialism, but love Social Security and Medicare by Jed Lewison Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 09:50:03 AM PDT According to a new poll from CBS and the New York Times, 92% of tea partiers are scared that America is moving towards socialism -- but in a strange twist, most of them seem to like it. Despite the fear that socialism is coming to America, 62% of tea party supporters also support Social Security and Medicare. In fact, nearly half of them either benefit from Social Security or Medicare or have somebody in their immediate family who does. And about one-third are directly beneficiaries at least one of the programs, compared to about one-fifth of the population at large. Some other highlights from the poll (NYT, CBS): 18% of Americans say they are tea party supporters. 66% of tea party supporters say they usually or always vote Republican. (Just 5% vote Democratic.) 73% say they are conservative. 41% believe Barack Obama was born in the United States. While 65% believe the Obama Administration treats blacks and whites equally, 56% believe it favors poor people over the middle-class and rich. 89% are white and 52% believe too much attention is paid to the problems facing African-Americans. 59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.) 63% say they get most of their political news from Fox News Channel. 66% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin, compared to 12% who view her unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 30% and 45%.) 24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government. 52% believe the federal income taxes they pay are fair. 84% of the tea partiers believe their views reflect those of most Americans, but only 25% of all Americans agree (remember: 18% are tea partiers). from: dailykos

When the employees took the job the part of their healthcare paid for by the employer was a benefit, just like sick days, vacation days, etc.. And the benefit of healthcare has a dollar value. If the employer just wanted to make more profit to begin with, then he wouldn't offer healthcare at all and save that $600,000 per year. If he drops healthcare for his employees, then they lose a benefit with a dollar value. And in addition, they would have to purchase health insurance from the exchange. And you really think they're going to do all this and not expect an increase in salary? I don't think so. Especially not if they're union and have a negotiated contract.

Here's more to this story. Plus it doesn't say what the EMPLOYEE currently pays for his share of this healthcare insurance. What about employees at Eldredge Inc., a West Chester, Pa., waste-transport company? Chief financial officer Alice Egan does the math: "We have 55 employees, and we currently pay more than $600,000" to cover them and their families. She multiplies 55 by $2,000. "The fine would cost me $110,000, so I’d save nearly a half-million dollars." Actually, she would save more. The legislation gives employers a pass on the first 30, so her fine would be $50,000 for 25 staffers. That would mean her company would no longer be covering employees’ families — an unattractive option to current employees and potential hires. "We want to do the best we can to recruit the best employees we can afford," she said. Egan expects Eldredge to continue to offer coverage. But, she said, if other companies could lower their costs by skipping coverage, "it would make it awfully enticing for someone whose profitability is suffering." As an employee, Egan said, she would want her company to provide health benefits. "As an employer," she quickly adds, "it would be an interesting decision." Depending on what employees are paying, it might be cheaper to purchase insurance through the exchanges. And you know the workers would expect to be paid more now that their employer isn't providing insurance. Also, if we had a medicare buy in for all and removed the employer from the healthcare equation that would be best for everyone.

from dailykos: Last month, a monumental step was taken in America's promise to make health care a right for every American and not a privilege for only those who can afford it. It was but a first step, but a damned good first step. But some, under the guise of a promise to help people fight insurance company abuses, cannot help the urge to malign the achievement of the new law. There are several pieces of misinformation being spread here. One of the worst is that without direct price control authority in the hands of regulators - or at least the authority to control any increases in price - insurance affordability is nothing but smoke and mirrors. That's false. There are several ways the new law delivers on affordability. The Individual Mandate, Elimination of Pre-Existing Conditions and Community Rating: Recall that the individual mandate is only applicable to those who can find insurance for under 8% of their income. That's a maximum. So if insurers want people subject to the individual mandate, they must offer insurance within those limits, at least for people with incomes that is more than 400% of the federal poverty level. In other words, for an individual with an income of $45,000 per year (who gets no subsidies), insurance companies must offer coverage costing $3,600 or less in premiums. Given that insurance companies are not allowed to vary prices based on income, they must offer that plan to all individuals with all income levels. Now, what are the incentives for the insurance companies to offer a plan at all, other than the fact that they want people subject to the individual mandates. Why would they care if people are subject to the individual mandate? Because, you see, they will no longer be able to deny (or even more) based on a pre-existing condition. If they do not offer affordable coverage and people are exempt from the mandate, they may well wait until they get sick to get coverage, knowing they cannot be turned down, and that they must be given the same rate as a person without that condition of the same age and smoking habit. That is not something insurance companies want. The only way for them to make money is to offer coverage to healthy people who won't use care all that much at a reasonable rate. And the law says that if they do, they must provide coverage at that rate to anyone else of the same age and smoking habit, regardless of health status. Insurers can vary insurance premiums by up to a factor of 3 based on age, which is not a good thing. Nonetheless, to do this, insurance companies will have to keep the rates of young people low enough so that enough of them stay in the system (the younger you are, generally speaking, the healthier you are, but also the less you make and the easier it is for you to be exempted from the mandate). Medical Loss Ratio Requirements: Individual plans will have a MLR of 80% and group plans 85%. Meaning that an insurance company must spend that much of their premium revenue on actual care rather than administrative expenses/profits. If they do not, they must write you a check for the difference at the end of the year, which is a pretty good incentive to keep the premiums reasonable. Keep in mind that in the individual market right now, the MLR is as low as 60%, despite the insurance industry whining about how much they spend on care. Actual Premium Caps and Out-of-Pocket Limits: The final legislation tightened up the actual premium caps for people receiving subsidies (yes, I said premium caps) and out-of-pocket limits for everyone. I had prepared a full table including premium caps and out-of-pocket maximums previously; here is the updated version of it that accounts for the changes done through reconciliation. % of FPL150250350450Income (first line = individual, second line = family of 4) $16,245 $33,075$27,075 $55,125$37,905 $77,175$48,375 $99,225Out-of-pocket cap (first line = individual, second line = family of 4) $1,983 $3,967$2,975 $5,950$3,967 $7,933$5,950 $11,900Out-of-pocket cap as percentage of income12%11% 10%12% Premium cap as percentage of income4%8.05% 9.5%N/A Worst case scenario cost as percentage of income16%19.05% 19.5%N/A Where am I getting these numbers? The underlying Senate bill defines the out-of-pocket limits: Sec. 1402. Reduced cost-sharing for individuals enrolling in qualified health plans. The standard out-of-pocket maximum limits ($5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families) would be reduced to one-third for those between 100-200 percent of poverty, one-half for those between 200-300 percent of poverty, and to two-thirds for those between 300-400 percent of poverty. And the reconciliation package improves on the premium caps: The new health care law would limit premium contributions for the second lowest cost silver plan to the following percentages of income once fully implemented (in 2019): 133% up to 150% of Federal Poverty Level — 2% 150% up to 200% of Federal Poverty Level — 4% 200% up to 250% of Federal Poverty Level — 6.3% 250% up to 300% of Federal Poverty Level — 8.05% 300% up to 400% of Federal Poverty Level — 9.5% So, any costs beyond those percentages for the second cheapest silver plan on a state’s exchange would be subsidized by the federal government. The Kaiser Family Foundation subsidy calculator will give you the exact caps (and they refer to them as caps) for your income level as well as how much you can expect to pay for your insurance if you are buying in the exchanges. Regulators' Power over Premium Increases: Now, sure, it would be nice to have the regulators have the power to block any and all rate increases by whim, and I support Sen. Feinstein's efforts on that front. But as constructed now, insurance regulators would have the power to make insurers justify their rate increases, and if they are unable to do so and insist on the increase, regulators would have the power to bar an insurer from participating in the exchanges (thus losing them a huge chunk of business and a large chunk of money in taxpayer subsidies). So in essence, they do have the power to crack down on prices as long as an insurer wishes to remain in the exchanges - which they would because that's where the biggest pool of money is. Now, does regulator pressure or public release of rates on insurers work? Sure, if regulators are effective. After California regulators started breathing down their neck and the rate increases became public, Anthem Blue Cross agreed to postpone their rate increases while state regulators reviewed the case. In Massachusetts, insurance companies are trying to sue the state regulators to try to hike rates, and so far not having much success. Insurance companies recently backed down from their attempt to find a non-existent loophole in the current law to cover children without regard to pre-existing conditions after Secretary Sebelius cracked down. Substantively, even if regulators had that power, we need to keep in mind that while insurance companies are a problem, they are only part of the larger health care puzzle. Health care costs aren't insurance costs alone. Several areas of our health care costs need to be taken care of, and the new law gives us a good beginning on those (such as hospital costs, wellness and prevention, expansion of information about generic drugs). For more information on these other cost measures in the new law, you can see my Beyond Insurance series. Here are some concrete examples of cost containments and incentives in the bill. The table didn't copy correctly, though. And as far as the student loan being in the bill - well, I say "THE NERVE", TOO. The nerve of the banks to get the profits with student loans while the federal government (taxpayers) assumed all the risk. Now, the federal government will save $65 billion by handling these loans themselves and cutting out the middleman. A win-win, in my eyes. Once again, Pattygreen, you stand with the banks and against the taxpayers.

Your experience does not reconcile with mine. He is actually the doctor that I switched to from my former surgeon, who overfilled me and then blamed me for all the resulting problems. An upper GI showed how bad things were and he took out some fill. That is when I went to Dr. Urbandt for a second opinion and he's the one who told me the actual size of my band (4cc's) whereas my former surgeon told me it was 10 cc's. He was also very complimentary on my weight loss, which my former doctor wasn't. You don't say how many cc's your band held or how many cc's you had in fills. Did you request copies of all test results? If not, you should have, including the operative report. Then you needed to address all those results with him. I find it hard to believe that he ignored test results. Did you seek a second opinion? Did you call a patient advocate at the hospital or talk to the chief of surgery or hospital administrator? Who removed your band? Was it Dr. Urbandt or did you go to another hospital? Was the tube that was left in removed when the band was removed? And if not, why not? I have a friend who had to have much of her stomach removed due to a lot of gastric problems and they cut the vegas nerve on purpose and she is fine (very thin) but fine. I actually went to the ER in December due to being extremely stuck. I had called him twice from home and that's what he told me to do. The ER doctor removed all my fill and that's the way I have kept it. I was admitted overnight and the next day they did a follow up upper GI - everything was fine. And then they did another one the next month. Again - fine. He seemed concerned about this problem of mine. But I get all test results and follow through with calls, if necessary. Now, I know you're young, but if you're going to undergo such a surgery, you have to be prepared to be a proactive patient and get all the test results, ask questions, and know who to go to if you don't like the answers. Something about your story just doesn't add up to me. I believe that you had problems resulting in the removal of your band. But I think parts of your story are missing because it just doesn't seem normal for a doctor to ignore test results. I do wish you well and hope you can resolve all your problems. Good luck.

Rachel Maddow spends much of the time on her show exposing the lies & hypocrisy of the republicans, conservatives and tea party. I find her refreshing and honest. The only time I catch any of those wing nuts on the right is when she shows a clip on her show (or another show) so I saw Beck yapping about who Pres. Obama should pick to be the next supreme court justice and he made no attempt at being logical or sane. He just went on about how she should be an immigrant, disabled woman or some such nonsense and then if you vote against her they can say you're against immigrants and the disabled. And people really tune in to this dribble? This is what I said in another post. The right wing does not have any truth to refute the democratic agenda or Pres. Obama so they have to resort to lies, edited tapes and a bunch of mumbo jumbo that appeals to the low IQ types. Sarah Palin is especially good at this. Oh, and speaking of Sarah Palin. Did anyone catch Tina Fey last night on SNL mocking Sarah? It was great!! And not that far fetched.

Massey CEO's Blankenship's union busting tactics: Back in 1984-1985, the company, then called AT Massey, used vicious strikebreaking tactics, with all-out support of President Ronald Reagan, to bust a strike by the United Mine Workers seeking union recognition at Massey mines in Logan County, W. Va. Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship reported $24 million in salary and stock options in 2007 and $11.2 million in 2008. Earlier this year, he cashed in 200,000 stock options pocketing $3.8 million. In 2002, President George W. Bush named Massey Energy executive Stanley Suboleski to the review commission of the Mine Safety and Health Administration that oversees enforcement-or lack thereof-of the Federal Mine Act. Blankenship contributed $3 million to elect a West Virginia Supreme Court Justice. He took one of the Supreme Court justices on a junket to the French Riviera. Blankenship is a major moneybag for the Republican Party contributing $30,400 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and thousands more to GOP Senate candidates Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Rob Portman in Ohio. peoplesworld.org Do you see where and with whom the republicans stand? Why would you ever want to stand with these criminals? And it was all sanctioned by republican Saint Ronnie. And we know with all of bush's appointments it was always a case of the fox watching the hen house.

From the common criminal to the corrupt CEO, all of those who stand on the wrong side find ways to justify what they do. The right-wing anti-government militias, the Timothy McVeighs - in their demented minds they are justified for what they think and do. And as I've said before, I see this same mentality with the tea party. Those of us who see the government as we the people and who want to make it work for we the people have to be diligent to keep it from being hijacked by the radicals on the right who see the government as the enemy. They are dangerous in their thinking and many of their tactics.

As I posted elsewhere, he is known to be anti-union. I'll do more research on his tactics. It should come as no surprise that most of the biggest mining disasters (deaths) happen in non-union mines. But the republicans, conservatives and teabaggers stand with the mining company. And against unions.

The mine owner was very wealthy, politically connected, and openly disdainful of his critics. He donated large sums to Republican candidates personally, through his company, and via political action committee. He was able to pressure both local and federal officials to get his way. He also contributed to industry groups fighting against environmental regulations and was a vocal critic of global warming, saying that Al Gore "was more dangerous than global warming." When the Sago Mine disaster killed 12 West Virginia miners in 2006, calls went out for new safety regulations, but he lobbied against them, saying that politicians should stay away from his workers. When a roof collapse struck his own mine, he blamed a small earthquake for the deaths. Sound familiar? That's not information taken from this week's news. The mine operator in question is Bob Murray, the CEO of Murray Energy Company. Murray owns the Crandall Canyon Mine, where six miners and three rescue workers died in 2007. Yesterday, hope for a miracle deep beneath the mountains of West Virginia was extinguished as the bodies of the last four miners were found. The cause of the explosion that took the lives of 29 men has not yet been determined, but from the nature and strength of the explosion, it seems likely that it involved both a build up of methane and an accumulation of coal dust -- both of which should have been prevented by adequate supervision and implementation of safety regulations. The CEO of Massey Energy, Don Blankenship, is even more wealthy than Murry. He donates huge amounts to conservative causes, has funded a good chunk of the Tea Party movement in West Virginia, famously spent over $3 million to get a friendly judge elected to the state Supreme Court, and donated another $3 million in an attempt to fund a Republican takeover of the state legislature. Blankenship regularly engages in calling Democratic leaders "the crazies" and has said that any move to regulate pollution is the first step toward communism. Grist named Blankenship the "scariest polluter" in the country. Now that Blankenship's disregard for safety has cost the lives of 29 men, what should we expect? Not much. After all, this isn't the first time. In 2006, two West Virginia miners died in a fire at Massey's alma Number 1 Mine when fire fighting equipment turned out to be non-functional. The company paid out a record $4.2 million in fines, but still turned a record profit. Blankenship personally pocketed an extra $14 million in stock options that year -- not exactly an incentive to change. Better still, take a look at what happened to Bob Murray who is... still the CEO of Murray Energy, still operating mines across multiple states, and still donating big to conservative candidates (Scott Brown was a recipient of Murray's largess, as were dozens of other candidates since the Crandall Canyon disaster -- all of them Republicans). They say "follow the money" - well, when you follow the money to the teapartiers and other republicans, you find people like this, resposible for the deaths of miners from their safety violations. But hey, the teabaggers are just grass roots. Yeah, right.:confused:

Income Gap Grows During Recession Even as the economy shrank last year, the income gap—the divide between the country’s richest and poorest citizens—kept growing. In 1978, CEOs at the largest U.S. companies earned 35 times as much as the average worker. Today, that figure is more than 300:1, according to the Harvard Business Review. In 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that income inequality had reached a modern high, with the wealthiest 10% of the population earning 11.4 times as much as the poorest 10%. Research by Kevin Hallock, a professor at Cornell University, indicates that the trend persists: “From 1979 to 2009, after adjusting for inflation, the highest earners in the U.S. saw dramatic growth in their earnings while the lowest earners now make less than they did 30 years ago.” Should the U.S. do more to address income inequality? Yes 62% No 38% Income inequality tends to be high in places with large populations of the very rich, like southern Connecticut, or the very poor, like Brownsville, Tex. It is also high in cities like New York, Miami, and Chicago, where middle-class people have fled to the suburbs over the years. A gap between society’s rich and poor can have ugly consequences. Countries with greater income inequality have higher rates of teen pregnancy, infant mortality, obesity, mental illness, drug use, imprisonment, and homicide than countries where wealth is more evenly distributed, according to research by epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. In the U.S., measures like the progressive income tax, Medicaid, and welfare are used to address income inequality, but some economists and advocates say that we should go further. Nations like Austria, Belgium, and the Netherlands spend 7% to 8% of national income on social services for working-age people, compared to 2% in the U.S. That figure is unlikely to change, however, as polls show that Americans believe people get ahead in life by virtue of their own efforts. “If you think the process is just, you might think the outcome is just, even though some people are homeless and others are very comfortable,” says Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution. parade.com We only spend 2% of our national income on social services for working age people? Well, to hear some of those on here continually yapping about this, you'd think it was close to 100%. Also, see that part about the highest earners seeing dramatic growth in their income? They're called republicans and they like the status quo (tax cuts for them, no expansion of healthcare, etc..) because things are working out great for them. Forget about everyone else.

"This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by _____________ rather than hung from a tree.[24]" When I heard these words I thought how prophetic they were as to what is happening to our current black president. Just fill in the blank with- tea partiers, right wing militia, conservatives, republicans, etc.. These words were said by ultra-conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas in his testimony to Congress on 10/11/91 and his blank was the Senate committee.

from: dailykos This is about those lying edited tapes about ACORN that I posted previously. ACORN exonerated: The tapes were edited. Will the media retract and apologize? Fri Apr 09, 2010 at 08:05:55 AM PDT The ACORN scandal was very real, but not in the ways some think it was real. It was another example of how a dishonest right wing smear machine can use typically dishonest right wing smear tactics to derail and largely destroy what it perceives to be a political enemy. This isn't getting much notice, but it should be. Joe Conason links to the concise conclusion of the investigation of ACORN by Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes. It doesn't get more blunt: That investigation is now concluded and no criminality has been found. Conason: The prosecutor's findings predictably drew little attention from the mainstream and right-wing media that blared O'Keefe's videotapes so relentlessly last year, as if he had uncovered a massive scandal. Indeed. As with the Clinton "scandals," which the media did so much to hype, and which, despite years of unprecedentedly intense investigations, found only that the president had engaged in misbehavior of a highly personal nature. But it gets worse. Conason: But with California Attorney General Jerry Brown's release of unedited videotapes of the ACORN "stings" in San Diego and Los Angeles -- which demonstrate clearly how editing distorted those events -- the Brooklyn probe takes on added significance. Because Brown also found that there was no criminality. But more tellingly, Conason refers to this article in the New York Daily News: While the video by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source. "They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source. As Conason points out, and despite all the outrage and hype in the both the right wing and mainstream media, the "scandal" was manufactured. Deliberately and dishonestly. A smear. Typical right wing tactics. ACORN committed no crimes. They were smeared. The unedited tapes, of course, have not been released to the public, because the smear merchants don't want to reveal their tactics. One would hope that the media would now treat all productions of right wing smear merchant Andrew Breitbart as the type of productions that they are: fictions. Of course, the real criminal in the story turned out to be the man who made the video. That would be confessed criminal James O'Keefe. Who got caught tampering with the phones of a U.S. Senator, in another attempted smear campaign. That one failed, but the smear of ACORN succeeded in one way: ACORN has been all but destroyed. Meanwhile, Conason concludes with a pointed question to those media dupes that played along with the smear campaign: When will they ask Breitbart to release the tapes in full, as they should have done months ago? And when will they ask Roger Ailes to explain why his network doesn't owe its viewers a full and humble retraction? We all know the answer to that. ACORN was just another victim of right wing smear merchants and our perpetually incompetent mainstream media. This is the WHOLE basis of the right wing conservative's response to everything from Obama and the democrats: LIE, LIE AND LIE SOME MORE. The reason they have to lie is that they have no truth to refute anything Pres. Obama has done or the legislation that the democrats have passed. If they had the truth, they wouldn't have to lie. But from the stimulus to healthcare to ACORN, it has been one lie after another. If they thought they were right, then they could stand on their truth. But they are wrong, so they have to resort to lie after lie. Everything the teabaggers, limbaugh, hannity, beck, palin, bachman, cheney, et al say - IS ALL LIES. AND THROW IN A GOOD MEASURE OF FEAR (WHICH IS JUST EXAGGERATED LIES). :biggrin:

I love this because Palin's been yapping all week about one thing or another about Obama in her usual shrill voice and smart mouthed sarcastic manner and calm, cool and collected Pres. Obama just puts her down in a few easy sentences: President Obama questions Sarah Palin's nuclear acumen WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Thursday made clear he was not going to take advice from Republican Sarah Palin when it comes to decisions about the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Palin, the former vice presidential candidate, has not been shy about criticizing Obama's policies and this week weighed in on his revamped nuclear strategy, saying it was like a child in a playground who says 'punch me in the face, I'm not going to retaliate.' "I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues," Obama said in an interview with ABC News. Pressed further on Republican criticism that his strategy restricts the use of nuclear weapons too much, Obama added: "What I would say to them is, is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin." Obama unveiled a new policy earlier this week that restricts U.S. use of nuclear weapons and renounces development of new atomic weapons. Plus, I heard on tv those who knew Saint Ronnie that he was uncomfortable with nukes and would have supported and signed this treaty. So how can any republican be against it if their patron saint would have been for it?

It doesn't take much to push these people, who are predisposed to irrational thoughts, over the edge. And the constant anti-government/anti-Obama YAPPING coming from the liars on the right just serves to inflame these people. I see the same mindset of people like this man and Timothy McVeigh in these teaparty people. Same justification for their misguided views, same hatred and only a hairs breath away from violence at any given moment. I mean we have that Erik Erikson, right wing nut, just hired by CNN saying he would get his wife's rifle and shoot any census worker coming on his property. Well, if the republican nuts in Texas don't want to fill out the census, I say great. Because for each one that doesn't, Texas loses $12,000 and that's more for the rest of us. They're just cutting of their nose to spite their face.

Very true. But keep in mind, and I've said this before, but PG ignores it, it doesn't matter how many people watch Fox, because more people watched them during the 2008 presidential campaign, too, and Obama still won.

Only if Palin runs for President with that other shrill and fellow whacko, Michelle Bachman and then their campaign slogan can be: "I'M WITH STUPID"

I saw Debbie Wasserman Schultz talk today about her healthcare forum in Florida (lots of older people). The only rude people were the teabaggers. One said God gave her her breast cancer because of her vote for healthcare. As a breast cancer patient myself and having lost a husband to cancer, I can only hope that there is a special place in hell for these people. But, anyway, when she explained what is referred to as the healthcare mandate, the people understood. She said there actually is no mandate in the healthcare bill. It simply classifies people for the purpose of doing your income tax form as having health insurance or not. Just like the tax forms distinguish between married and single, homeowners and renters, those with kids and those without, there will be a difference between those with healthcare insurance and without and your final tax bill will be reflective of that just like it is with all those other distinctions. But such a simple explanation doesn't play well with the death panel group. Makes too much sense. :smile2:

The other ACORN video shows pimp and prostitute going in for a loan to buy a house. The pimp explains that the banks have turned her away because she's a prostitute. The Fox tape is edited and it looks like the ACORN worker is saying to the prostitute to keep up her work and not to give up. But the unedited version shows the worker is saying to the prostitute to not give up trying to get a loan, to keep going and she will eventually get one from a bank.