Cleo's Mom

I loved the picture they ran of Jane Orie. She looked like a pitbull. It was great. Well, turnabout is fair play. Bonusgate swings both ways.

Very good points, BJean. I wish Letterman would have asked Ms. Tea Party how many jobs those huge bailed out banks created with all of our money that they gambled with. Companies whose main goal is to satisfy stockholders are not concerned about turning profits so that they can hire more workers. They just want to pad their and stockholders stock portfolios. This is one of the biggest lies coming from these woefully ignorant people on the right.

RE: The coal mine disaster in West Virginia The more I hear about this tragedy, the more I realize why I am so proud to be a democrat. This was a non-union coal mine and it shouldn't come as a surprise that most of the coal mine disasters have happened in non-union mines. The CEO of this coal mine made $19.7 million last year and is known to be a union-busting CEO. In addition to the hundreds of mine violations, many of which were life and death ones he opposed miners starting a union. If a coal miner worked a lot of overtime and over the years, he might make $70,000/year and if he makes it out alive, get rewarded with black lung. There is a saying that mine safety laws are written in the blood of dead miners. Well, the democratic party supports unions and work place safety. The republican party does not. It, like many on this board, stands with corporate america, their greed and their profits over people. And believes that they should self-regulate. Yeah, right! :thumbup: I am so glad I am on the right side.

Have you also noticed that since Obama was elected suddenly everyone on the right is an expert on the constitution and our founding fathers? This would be funny if not so pathetic. These self-proclaimed "experts" couldn't name 3 founding fathers with a Texas history book and a flashlight.:thumbup: They can't even spell correctly on their homeschool protest signs. You know the saying "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Well, these fools are shouting it at the top of their lungs.

Oh, cries of foul!! :thumbdown: Obviously those on the right, conservatives and republicans are not used to being asked to provide proof for their allegations (or more often, lies). They got away with it under bush. Well, there's a new sheriff in town. Get used to it. :thumbup:

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Corbett's frivolous lawsuit: The attorney general's attack on health reform is costly politics Wednesday, April 07, 2010 By Gary L. Kaplan Let's assume Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett was not in the midst of an election campaign. And let's ignore the irony of his decision to spend taxpayer funds on a Republican Party challenge to health care reform that was filed within hours of the most recent bonusgate convictions. Standing alone, Mr. Corbett's decision to join in a frivolous lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care reform legislation, while failing to offer any constructive alternatives, should raise serious doubts about the leadership he would offer as governor. Notwithstanding partisan posturing, the federal health care reform is neither the end of civilization nor unconstitutional. It is not even a close question. Last week, for example, one law school tried to hold a debate among "distinguished law faculty" on the constitutionality of the law. Although the law school "tried very hard" to get a professor who would argue that the law is unconstitutional, it couldn't find one. (The Wall Street Journal had better luck: It recently published an article with four different views of the lawsuit, including one arguing it has merit. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the pro-lawsuit piece was written by two lawyers who were paid to file the dubious suit.) Meanwhile, respected conservative legal scholars have derided the lawsuit. Charles Fried, former solicitor general for President Ronald Reagan and Harvard professor, has called the case "truly silly" and suggested that its proponents are "deeply ignorant or just grandstanding in a preposterous way." Mr. Corbett's lawsuit makes three arguments. First, the suit claims the federal government cannot force the states "to assume costs they cannot afford, and by requiring them to establish health insurance exchanges." In fact, the law does not "force" the states to do anything. A state could completely avoid costs of reform by refusing to accept federal Medicaid money. But if the state wants the money, it has to live with any strings attached to it. In 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a nearly identical challenge to a part of the Social Security Act and has made numerous similar rulings since that time. Strike one. Second, the lawsuit claims that the individual mandate, which would impose a tax penalty on individuals who fail to obtain health insurance, is unconstitutional because the Constitution expressly permits only census-based taxes. Also since the 1930s, however, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal government has the power to regulate individual conduct, including through tax incentives, to promote the general welfare. A tax intended to prevent financial implosion of the national health care system meets this test. Strike two. Third, to overcome Congress's undoubted power to regulate interstate commerce, the suit argues that "inactivity," such as a failure to purchase health insurance, cannot "have any substantial effect on commerce." Both factually and legally, this argument is absurd. When it comes to health care, no one is an island. When healthy people -- that is, people who are healthy today -- forgo insurance, they increase the costs to everyone else. And those costs are made even higher if those healthy people (as is often the case) turn out not to be so healthy after all or end up needing emergency care. Even Republicans agree that health insurers should be prohibited from rejecting applicants based on pre-existing conditions (or cutting off health benefits to sick plan members). Without a private mandate as part of such plainly constitutional regulation, however, only sick people would get insurance and the cost of coverage would quickly outstrip available funds. For this reason, numerous Republican proposals over the past 40 years, including those of Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney, have included individual mandates as a counterweight to insurance reform. Of course, an insurance mandate would not be necessary in a "single-payer" or "socialized" health system, but it is hard to imagine that Mr. Corbett and his cohorts would find that preferable. Strike three. Maybe Mr. Corbett could be excused for spending public funds on the lawsuit if he had a better plan. He doesn't. Mr. Corbett's statement on the subject is that he "believes that we must start with medical malpractice reform and work to strengthen the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs." What policies? Hoping no one gets sick? When it comes to health care reform and governing, wishful thinking is a poor substitute for leadership. Meanwhile, malpractice reform is not health care reform. Frivolous lawsuits affect all elements of society and health care is no different. Notably, the health reform bill includes $50 million for the states "to evaluate alternatives to current medical tort litigation." To benefit from this funding, Pennsylvania's leaders would need to develop a reasonable proposal for lawsuit reform. But apparently, Mr. Corbett's vision of leadership instead is simply to spill public funds into the nation's already overflowing reservoir of wasteful litigation. Gary L. Kaplan is a Pittsburgh attorney and an adjunct faculty member in Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz School (kaplan@dkykb.com). He blogs on legal affairs at ManagingDisputes.com.

And I want my country back from those who are outraged that a black man would have the nerve to even run for president let alone win. I want my country back from those angry, violent people who think the government is the problem when it is WE the people who are the government. I want my country back from those who think the answer is to throw bricks through windows or send death threats to democratic representatives. I want my country back from being run by corporate america who nearly put us into a full blown depression by recklessly gambling with out money I want my country back from those who think it belongs only to white men and that all others get to the back of the line. I want my country back from those who disrupt soldier's funerals with signs saying this is God's revenge for gays. I want my country back from those who want to take us back to the days before civil rights, women's right and worker rights. I want my country back from those who only claim to care about spending, deficits, the constitution or our founding fathers when a black democrat liberal is in the white house. I want my country back from those who think giving healthcare to the uninsured and improving their chances of not dying is somehow socialism, marxism, communism or some other stupid -ism. I want my country back from those selfish senior citizens who happily take their social security and medicare but want the government out of their healthcare and denied to everyone else. I want my country back from those who would rewrite history so as to indoctrinate a whole generation of children to right wing conservative views only I want my country back from the conservative saturated hate radio/tv that is feeding the demented minds of those who already have grudges against _______(fill in the blank - government, gun laws, Obama, blacks, immigrants, gays, etc.) I want my country back from those who want our president to fail and cheer when they percieve that he does (like not getting the Olympics in the US). This means they want our country to fail. I want my country back from those who wish to destroy our democratic principles - one being that we have elections and Obama WON by a big margin and the democrats won and are the majority - which gives them the right to pass their agenda with or without bipartinsanship and do it by majority rule or any other procedural rule allowed - BECAUSE THEY WON. They get to spend their capital. So get over it.

Here's another example of republicans trying to control women: Story Updated. Boehner, GOP continue their war on women by Dante Atkins Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 06:30:03 AM PDT The GOP's assault on women in light of the health insurance reform law may have started with a special ops attack on nursing mothers, but Minority Leader Boehner has just significantly expanded the theater of operations. See, Leader Boehner is outraged that contraception could be funded through Medicaid: "Tucked into the health reform legislation is a controversial provision allowing states to expand coverage for family planning services under Medicaid without a waiver from the federal government. Democrats had tried to insert the language into the Recovery Act in January 2009, but pulled back after it became a lightning rod for GOP attacks ... Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) championed the provision in the Senate, adding it to the Senate Finance Committee version of the legislation during mark-up, sources said, and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) pushed for it in the House. ... ‘How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?’ House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said of the provision, according to Reuters.” There are two major sources of concern here. First, the fact that Leader Boehner is attacking birth control funding just goes to show that the forced birth cult wing of the Republican Party isn't really interested in snowflake babies. After all, it would stand to reason that making contraception readily available would make a significant dent in the number of unplanned pregnancies. Rather, they are far more concerned with making sure that women--especially poor women--suffer consequences for daring to have sex unless they make sure to do it with a strong, powerful man who they know can provide for them--in other words, the medieval model of gender relations. But even more alarming is the fact that Boehner and the GOP are now so bold as to think that attacking the pill is a sound political idea. Either Boehner and the GOP are just that out of touch with political reality, or we will have a fierce battle ahead to protect the freedoms we all take for granted. from: dailykos You might recall that I posted about Boehner telling the banks (with reference to financial reform) that he had their backs. Isn't that great that he has the bank's back but turns his back on women? FOLKS, THIS IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!! AND THIS IS WHO YOU WANT TO ELECT?? :thumbdown:

This is so true. The republicans are just such liars and hypocrites it sickens me. When they're not too busy parading around as the patriotic, moral, family values party (all disproved, by the way) then they are voting against women, children and families. They're all supportive of motherhood, except when they aren't (which is when they vote). The following article is just one example. Irony 1, Republicans 0: breastfeeding saves lives and money by Dante Atkins Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 05:20:05 PM PDT In case you missed it: for yesterday's Sunday Kos, I described the idiocy of one Jason Mattera, who "challenged" Senator Franken on some specific provisions of the new health care law. Mattera was particularly incensed about one particular provision that mandated employers to provide time and space for women to express breast milk, claiming that it would introduce "milk police" and constituted an unnecessary government intrusion. And wouldn't you know--that same evening, it just so happens to come out that promoting breastfeeding saves lives and money: CHICAGO — The lives of nearly 900 babies would be saved each year, along with billions of dollars, if 90 percent of U.S. women breast-fed their babies for the first six months of life, a cost analysis says. Those startling results, published online Monday in the journal Pediatrics, are only an estimate. But several experts who reviewed the analysis said the methods and conclusions seem sound. "The health care system has got to be aware that breast-feeding makes a profound difference," said Dr. Ruth Lawrence, who heads the American Academy of Pediatrics' breast-feeding section. from: dailykos

Then why don't you report all these people to the proper authorities and offer your clear evidence of what they are doing? Isn't that your civic duty? Unless you are the doctor of the person getting SSI, I don't see how you could possibly know whether that person is disabled enough not to be able to work or not. Not all disabilities are visible. All working people pay into unemployment so it is a benefit that they pay for. As for the extensions - well we have a very unique economic situation with the current recession - and I support the extensions. People pay taxes on unemployment and use the money to buy things and pay their bills.

Dr. Willke is the president of the nationwide, educational Life Issues Institute. He has served for ten years as president of the U.S. National Right to Life Committee. He helped found the International Right to Life Federation in 1984 and remains its president. His daily 5-minute radio program was carried on almost 400 radio stations for 18 years until recently. His one-minute comments, Life Jewels, were on over 1,000 stations in English and Spanish, with 50 in Australia, 30 in South Africa and many stations in Brazil. He is obviously biased as well as having products (books, videos, etc..) to sell. He is marketing his opinion.

Oh, I almost forget. There's republican Tom Coburn who pulled a "Jim Bunning" before Congress recessed for 2 weeks on March 26th. He blocked extension of unemployment. (You might remember that republican Jim Bunning did the same thing a few weeks ago). Now, in his defense, that's just (at least) two weeks that those greedy unemployed won't get a check to pay their rent or mortgage of help feed their kids. I mean - can't they go out and cut grass or sell crafts or something? I would add shovel snow but I think that's over til next winter. I wonder if any of those who won't get checks belong to the tea party. But hey, keep voting these guys in. That's the plan, right?

I also heard Sen. Amy Klobucher (D-MN) but she said she referred to herself as a wise Slovenian so she might have ruined her chances.

And next we have sour grapes McCain. He might get the hypocrisy of the week award. He actually said that he does not consider himself a maverick. Has he become so senile that he forgets that a 3 hour video could be made of all the times he referred to himself as a maverick just during the presidential campaign? Not to mention that the subtitle of his book mentions his maverick title. I mean the rate at which these republicans are trying to rewrite history is staggering. Have they not heard of video cameras?

Next on the list we have Sen. John Kyl (R-Arizona) - you might remember him as the one during the healthcare debate who questioned why there needed to be maternity care in it since HE didn't need it. Well, he is already saying he will filibuster a non-existent nominee for a not even yet vacant supreme court position. Way to go Kyl! Keep up the good republican obstructionism. Do they give out trophies for that at the GOP?

I have some updating on what the lying, hypocritical and obstructionist republicans have been up to: Former PAC chairman fined by D.C. is hired as GOP fundraiser By Perry Bacon Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, April 5, 2010 Neil S. Alpert, whom the District fined three years ago for improperly spending money from a political action committee he chaired, has been hired by the Republican National Committee to help with its fundraising. Alpert, whose new role was reported Sunday by AOL's Politics Daily, will serve as a special assistant for finance to RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele. His hiring comes as fellow Republicans have sharply criticized Steele and the national committee after campaign finance reports unearthed last week showed that an RNC aide had authorized spending almost $2,000 at a bondage-themed nightclub in West Hollywood as part of an effort to recruit young donors. In 2007, the District's Office of Campaign Finance found that Alpert improperly spent $37,670 on items that were not authorized by the D.C. Baseball PAC, which he chaired, or the D.C. Baseball Association, a nonprofit group that the PAC created to raise money for youth programs. He was asked to reimburse the groups, which were dissolved after Major League Baseball authorized a Washington franchise, and was fined $4,000. This not only calls into question the judgement of the RNC, but you want THESE people guardians of our tax money? Seriously?

Just from reading all the posts on the regular forums on LBT, you can see that doctors have a broad spectrum of knowledge with some of them being woefully misinformed about things and with a wide degree of differing opinions. Your doctor obviously didn't know what he was talking about and you should have done your own research before taking such extreme measures. I never take a doctor's word as gospel. As a cancer patient and having had my husband die from his cancer, I can assure you that I researched everything and questioned all of our collective doctors. We each must become informed because we care about ourselves and our families much more than a doctor does.

And I published a report that studied the effects for a longer period and found positive outcomes, so what's your point, other than to take another thing away from poor kids. Let's reduce corporate welfare by $7 billion per year and keep this program. Making corporations finally pay their fair share of taxes would be a first step.

When a priest wrote a letter to the editor similar to the above article, he got blasted by replies, the following by another priest who gets it right: Out-of-step position The Rev. James Holland's diatribe against Catholic social teaching ("Individuals, Not Government, Must Care for the Poor," March 22 letters) proclaims a toxic brand of cafeteria Catholicism. It is an outright attack upon constant papal teaching. When he denies the obligation of the state to help all those who cannot help themselves, he rejects the entire corpus of Catholic social teaching. Pope Leo XIII wrote that "a small number of rich men have been able to lay upon the masses of the poor a yoke little better than slavery itself. ... The richer population have many ways of protecting themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State." Pope Pius XI described the economic system as "hard, cruel and relentless" and reiterated that the state has the obligation to care for the common good. When human rights can be fulfilled in no other way, then it falls to the state to honor them. Pope John XXIII enumerated among those rights, the basic rights to food, shelter and health care. Father Holland advocates for an individualistic Catholicism at odds with the whole Catholic tradition. Individual acts of charity are essential to the improvement of our society, but Pope Benedict XVI has made it clear, they do not suffice. He teaches that hand in hand with charity we must have justice to change the unjust structures and systems that oppress the poor. He calls it "action for justice," and in his encyclical on hope, he teaches that the proper role of the state is to organize the just order of society. Father Holland's position is so out of step with Catholic tradition, it is not even recognizable as Catholic. REV. DAVID L. SMITH

This is just so much BS. The needs of the poor, elderly, disabled and single parents is overwhelming and far beyond the ability of any one or collective charities to address. The charities supplement what the government does, but the sheer scope of need far outweighs available charities. Take this recession. The government provides extended unemployment benefits, more qualify for medicaid, etc.. and yet all these soup kitchens, food pantries and other charities are stretched beyond their capacity. The need cannot be met by charities alone and to yearn for some yesteryear when people lived differently is to ignore the realities of today.

This is a cop out. It isn't enough for you to rant all the time about people who don't deserve their government benefits, then offer suggestions for what they can do to get off the government dole but be unwilling to go any further. Sounding off on here isn't going to change anything. Isn't that what you want? You already have discounted your elected reps as being willing to change the system. So like I said before, - IT IS UP TO YOU. Why don't you send a letter (anonymous of course) to the department of welfare and tell them what you know about how these specific people are scamming the system? As I have said, you have intimate knowledge that they are doing it, so send the specifics to those in a position to take these benefits away. Write letters to the editor and list your suggestions for them to earn extra money by shoveling snow, cutting grass or doing crafts. Then you can cut and paste your letter here if it gets published. So, if you think your ideas have merit (I don't, but you obviously do) then do something about it so that you can genuinely get benefits taken away from undeserving people. Even if you only get one single mom off WIC that should make you feel good.

I haven't heard her name but I have heard Janet Napolitano. As to the teabaggers in flames - well I hadn't intended a pun but I guess you could find one.

This healthcare bill was largely enacted to help the uninsured get insurance and to stop some of the biggest abuses by the insurance industry. For the uninsured, it expands medicaid and creates an insurance exchange for those without insurance. For those who can afford to buy insurance, they will be required to do so. For those who can't, they will be given subsidies. For businesses over 50 employees, they will be required to offer insurance and will receive a 35%-50% tax right- off to offset this. For insurance industry: no more denying healthcare for pre-existing conditions, or dropping someone when they get sick. And parent's dependents can stay on their plans until they are 26, which is very important because one of the largest group of uninsured are kids between 18-26. If you already have healthcare, either individually or through your employer, you can keep it and your doctor if you want. This doesn't impact you as much. But all of this has been demonized so much and lied about so much by the right wing media and their stupid followers.