Cleo's Mom

As I've said many times on this forum, the republicans stand with the rich, corporate america and wall street. Here is further proof from Mr. Coppertone himself: Boehner Tells Bankers To Fight Financial Reform: ‘Don’t Let Those Little Punk Staffers Take Advantage Of You’ This week, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) released the latest version of his financial regulatory reform bill, which aims to correct the deficiencies in the financial system that led to 2008’s economic crisis. The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive regulatory reform bill, and now that Dodd has given up on negotiating with recalcitrant Republicans, he is moving on an expedited timeline, with a markup scheduled for Monday. It’s taken the Senate a year and a half after the financial crisis to even get to this point, but House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told “an enthusiastic crowd of bankers” today that, even if the Senate passes a bill, reconciling it with the House version will take another year. “If the Senate is able to produce a bill, I think it’s just as likely that we’ll be talking about the same issue a year from now as we are right now,” Boehner said at the American Bankers Association government relations summit. Boehner then added that the bankers should be standing up for themselves against “those little punk staffers” trying to write new regulations: “Don’t let those little punk staffers take advantage of you and stand up for yourselves,” Boehner said. “ That's right. And standing with them will be the hypocritical republicans. The democrats, in trying to advance financial reform, are standing with middle america. These reforms would help prevent the financial abuses of wall street when they played russian roullette with our money and created the worst financial disaster since the great depression. But apparently the republicans want to allow wall street to continue with their greedy practices. Now, the teabaggers claim to be against the bank bailouts and the wall street abuses, so let's just see which side they come out on with financial reform. Because, gosh darn, it's not about hating Pres. Obama or racism, it's about the deficit. :Banane20:

I have never seen a sorer loser. After the election, the classy and gracious Pres. Obama reached out to mccain and had a dinner in his honor and like the next day mccain was bashing Pres. Obama and hasn't stopped since. He is so desperate in his re-election bid that he has sarah palin (who dissed him) stumping for him in Arizona. And to think this guy might have been president. And her vp. Whew, we dodged that bullet.

Social Security and Medicare are very popular plans, also the result of democrats. But remember that these plans, too, were demonized by the republicans. History will show that this healthcare plan is good for americans and good for this country.

Ohhh, just wait! More fear. Can't you come up with new lies? Maybe something like this healthcare will pay for breast implants for welfare mothers.

Not if the teaparty runs candidates as a third party. When they do the democrat wins. So, I guess they'll have to get squarely behind the republicans that they claim they are not associated with. As I have posted before, the majority always loses in mid term elections. That is not unexpected. But once people see the lies about healthcare are just that (just as they eventually did with the lies of Iraq and turned against the war) and that they are personally benefitting by it, and that the republicans are the party of no and have nothing to offer but tax cuts for the rich and war at any cost, well I don't think the republicans will make that big of gains. Of course if they unseat only one democrat they will be shouting about what a mandate it is, blah, blah, blah, just like they did with Scott Brown. Actually, Scott Brown did the democrats a favor. First, he took the power away from the likes of Lieberman as the 60th vote. Lieberman then became irrelevant. Which was great. Second, it got the cowards in the democratic party from cowering and they came out fighting. AND WE WON. :thumbup: I don't care what happens in November. Majorities come and go but this healthcare is forever.

You're right, I was probably hallucinating when I watched the videos that showed the violence, the broken windows, the spitting, the racial slurs shouted out, the news of the FBI investigating the cut gas line, etc.. You need to call up these tv news organizations, pattygreen, and tell then to quit making this stuff up. I mean these people get paid big bucks and to go to that length to invent videos and lies, tsk, tsk, tsk..shame on them. But be aware that there is a mental illness classification called denial defined as: the refusal to acknowledge the existence or severity of unpleasant external realities or internal thoughts and feelings. But maybe this new healthcare reform will cover this pre-existing condition.

With apologies to LeighaMason (sorry but it does seem like many of the nut cases are from TX) I have to post this: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is calling for a strong re-assertion of states rights against Congress -- in the form of a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the direct popular election of Senators, and go back to the pre-17th Amendment setup of state legislatures appointing them. So, he wants to take away voter's rights to directly vote for Senators. Then we had that hilarious Rudy Giuliani on today saying to give the republicans a chance. Vote them in because under Pres. Obama they just haven't been able to do anything they wanted. Just give them a chance, he said and they would do healthcare right, buy across state lines, tort reform, etc.. Well, let me think for a minute. When was that that the republicans had the white house, the congress and the senate. Hmmmm. Oh, I remember now. It was under bush. Gee, I wonder why they didn't do all those wonderful things then? Oh, I think I know. They didn't have time. They were too busy passing two tax cuts for the rich, expanding an unfunded drug program, invading Iraq, and turning a surplus into a deficit. Well, you can see then that they wouldn't have had time to tackle an unimportant issue like healthcare. Keep 'em coming rudy, I need the laugh. :thumbup: I just heard something equally funny from sourgrapes McCain. He said (because of healthcare passing) that there would be no more cooperation for the rest of the year. Really, McCain? And how would we be able to tell? As if the party of no has cooperated on anything. Obama: Yes, we can Boehner: Hell, no we won't I think the democrats can go it alone without all that republican "cooperation". In fact, they can do better without it. Just take your toys and go home. The big boys will take it from here. :smile:

That's because we won, you lost and now you are trying desperately to find ways to defend those whackos who represent your views. Keep trying, PG, it just makes you sound less credible (if that's possible) each time.

I have already posted the proof that it isn't just one person or one incident. If you choose to keep ignoring that, then that is your choice. The violence from these people is escalating. It is all over the real news today. But you continue to defend these people, make excuses and dismiss it. Throwing bricks, encouraging aiming your rifle at the hearts of democrats, threatening children, spitting, hurling racial slurs, putting democrats in the crosshairs of a rifle (sarah palin facebook) and cutting the gas line at the home of the brother of a democrat who voted for healthcare. This man is married and has 4 children under the age of 8. These incidents portray a movement that is growing increasingly violent. While I don't want anyone to get hurt, at least I am glad that the american people are seeing these people for what they really are. As people see how good the healthcare reform is (and the poll numbers are starting to reflect this shift) the opposition will become increasingly desperate and violent and we are starting to see that.

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, February 10, 2006 The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade. "Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq." "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote. Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand. It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence. Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was an influential behind-the-scenes player and was considered the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst. By the end of his career, he was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community. He is now a professor in security studies at Georgetown University. Those who worked inside the white house have written books about how invading Iraq was the goal from day one (before 9/11). bush made the decision to invade Iraq after 9/11 and wanted those whose job it was to present intelligence to make the intelligence fit the decision to invade, whether in reality it did or not. He wanted the american people to think that invading Iraq had to do with 9/11. Most of the soldiers in the early years of the war believed this lie, too. How sad. Finally, almost at the end of his administration a reporter finally asked him what invading Iraq had to do with 9/11 and he said nothing. Was Saddam a bad dictator? Of course. Did he at one time have WMD. Yes. Did he have them in 2003. No, and we knew it. bush gave the inspectors like 10 minutes to inspect. Plus it was later learned that we could have bought Saddam off and deposed him to some island. Sure would have saved a lot of money and more importantly lives.

The violence against those democrats who voted against healthcare is growing everyday. First bricks through windows, then a threat against their children, then the man who advocated throwing the bricks says he has 3 million members who are cleaning their guns which can be pointed and directed at the hearts of anyone who they believe to be tyrannts. The latest incidence is that the teabaggers posted the addresses of the democrats who voted yes online and they mistakenly posted the address of a brother rather than the rep. So, at the home of Rep. Periello's brother, a gas line was found cut. The FBI is investigating. Still laughing, PG?

I didn't write the article.

In addition to the flag, you forgot the bible, also used by some to justify hate, racism, sexism, anti-gay, etc..

This is so well said and true (and much of what I've been saying) that I had to post it: from: daily kos To be sure, Mr. King has a politesse that is impressive under the circumstances, beginning with: Dear Conservative Americans, The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation. First, the invitation: Come back to us. [Emphasis mine] Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task. He's just getting warmed up... Then comes the list: it may be "by no means exhaustive", but you might just exhaust yourself reading it. It's a seemingly endless litany, fully sourced and linked, covering the following categories: Hypocrisy Hyperbole History Hatred Let's just take a small taste from section 1: Hypocrisy You can't refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn't meet with you. You can't rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly. You can't flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same. You can't flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush. Nixon. Ike. You didn't even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed (on the mouth) leaders of countries that are not on "kissing terms" with the US. You can't preach and try to legislate "Family Values" when you: take nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat with a staffer's wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers for sex while wearing a diaper and cheatingon your wife; or just enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have gay sex in a public toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coerce their parents into providing information; seek, look at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife's mother Phew. And that was only about 5% of the first f*****g section. This is starting to wear me out, so we'll just skip past the hundreds of other examples from just the past couple of years (read them for yourself) and go straight to his pithy conclusion: So, dear conservatives, get to work. Drain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bold-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred. Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America. We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we'll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms. We need you. [Emphasis mine]

If the states don't have the money where are they getting the money to pursue these lawsuits? The estimate for my state is $950 million. And they will lose. Talk about an abuse and waste of taxpayer money. :thumbup:

You can choose to ignore this post, but I will post it again, anyway. So in addition to the many who had racists sign, hurled racist slurs, spit on black reps, and were involved in harrassment - the following is domestic terrorism. You of course are free to defend and support it. (via Balloon juice) It's starting. Both Reps. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and Louise Slaughter had their local district offices vandalized shortly after they voted yes on the health care bill. But WHAM reports a much more disturbing update. Last Thursday she received a chilling recorded message at her campaign office. "Assassinate is the word they used... toward the children of lawmakers who voted yes." Do you see how f*****g sick these people are now? They are advocating violence towards the CHILDREN of Congressmen that voted for health care. Let that sink in. I fear all this is coming to a head, and that the epithets hurled at our Congressmen this weekend was only the beginning. And yes, I squarely place the blame on Fox News and right-wing talk radio for fanning the flames of this violent mood in this country. Balloon Juice notes that a teabagging blogger has actually taken credit for inspiring the vandalism. It's an Alabama blog called "Sipsey Street Irregulars". His excuse to every sane person's charge that this can lead to violence is this: Breaking windows is, by definition, violence to property. It is not violence to people. "I’m advocating broken windows. I’m advocating vandalism," says Mike Vanderboegh. We spoke to him by phone from his home in Pinson, Alabama. Vanderboegh is referring to his blog called Sipsey Street Irregulars. He says his invitation to "break windows...break them now" is behind the incident in Rochester and at least two others in Tucson and Kansas. The message to Democrats should be clear. .... Vanderboegh denies his blog advocates anything but vandalism. "How ambiguous is it if I say break windows? Am I saying kill people, absolutely not." We're dealing with a pretty sick puppy here. And as Balloon Juice's mistermix noted, the guy is actually on Social Security disability to boot. Now, he claims he's not responsible for any death threats, just the vandalism. For any lawyers out there, if this guy is openly calling for vandalism of Congressional offices, isn't he breaking some law? Say, the Patriot Act? USA PATRIOT 802c: DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— `(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that— `(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; `( appear to be intended— `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; `(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or `(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and `© occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’. Keep laughing, PG, the above is really funny.

It didn't take long and you knew who was going to defend them, too.

Mid term elections have historically shown a loss for the majority party and who's in the white house. Even without healthcare the democrats have known they would lose seats. This isn't some big revelation. It happened to the republicans in 2006. It's not like any of those people you see protesting were going to vote for democrats anyway. Or you either. The cost of this healthcare will be born largely by the rich and deservedly so since they have been given a free ride since reagan. The pre-tax incomes of the wealthy have soared since reagan while their tax rates have fallen more than the rates for the middle class and poor. When the middle class votes for republicans they vote against their own economic self-interests because the republicans have never done anything for the middle class. Here is their agenda: tax cuts for the rich and corporations and war at any cost.

And FDR declared war on the right country - Japan. He didn't invade Mexico, unlike bush who invaded the wrong country (Iraq).

I don't know. I will try to find out because that is an interesting question. My first thought is that if children can stay on their parent's health insurance that is paid by an employer, why wouldn't the child be able to stay on their mother's medicaid that is paid for by the government? I really don't know.

White House, experts: Health care suit will fail By BRENDAN FARRINGTON, AP 4 hours ago TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The White House says it isn't worried that 13 state attorneys general are suing to overturn the massive health care overhaul, and many legal experts agree the effort is futile. But the lawsuit, filed in federal court seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill, underscores the divisiveness of the issue and the political rancor that has surrounded it. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum led the effort to file the suit that claims Congress doesn't have the constitutional right to force people to get health coverage. It also says the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing resources to pay for it. "To that I say, 'Bring it on,'" said White House domestic policy chief Melody Barnes, who cited similar suits filed over Social Security and the Voting Rights Act when those were passed. "If you want to look in the face of a parent whose child now has health care insurance and say we're repealing that ... go right ahead." A 14th state, Virginia, did not join the bigger lawsuit, but filed its own, which other states are also considering. McCollum, a Republican running for governor, has been talking about suing to overturn the bill since December. This month he invited other attorneys general to join him. So far South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana have agreed. All the attorneys general are Republican except James "Buddy" Caldwell of Louisiana, a Democrat, who said he signed on because Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal asked him to and he felt the effort had merit. The lawsuit, filed in Pensacola, asks a judge to declare the bill unconstitutional because "the Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage." Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, said the effort isn't going anywhere. "This is pure, pure political posturing and they have to know it," he said. But South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley disputed that characterization, saying his state will have to cut education and other programs to make up for increased Medicaid costs under the overhaul. "This isn't about attorneys general trying to break into the realm of telling what needs to happen with health care reform," he said. "This is attorneys general saying you went too far with unfunded federal mandates. You exceeded your power under the Constitution." Not so, said Bruce Jacob, a constitutional law professor at Stetson University in Florida, who said the suit seems like a political ploy and is unlikely to succeed. "The federal government certainly can compel people to pay taxes, can compel people to join the Army," he said. Some more states, including Missouri, may join the multistate suit. Still others are looking at other ways to avoid participating, like passing legislation to block requirements in the bill. McCollum predicted his suit would eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. The health care bill "is not lawful," he said. "It may have passed Congress, but there are three branches of government." The lawsuit claims the health care bill violates the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution, by forcing the states to carry out its provisions but not reimbursing them for the costs. Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, said she strongly disagrees with Attorney General Rob McKenna's decision to sue, calling the lawsuit an effort to "gut the bill." "There is no reason why we need to spend taxpayer money in the state of Washington to join this suit, when it's going to be litigated no matter what," she said. The lawsuit also says the states can't afford the new law. Using Florida as an example, it says the overhaul will add almost 1.3 million people to the state's Medicaid rolls and cost the state an additional $150 million in 2014, growing to $1 billion a year by 2019. "We simply cannot afford to do the things in this bill that we're mandated to do," McCollum said at a press conference after filing the suit. He said the Medicaid expansion in Florida will cost $1.6 billion, including administrative and other costs. Under the bill, starting in six months, health insurance companies would be required to keep young adults as beneficiaries on their parents' plans until they turn 26, and companies would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to sick children. Other changes would not kick in until 2014. That's when most Americans will for the first time be required to carry health insurance — either through an employer or government program or by buying it themselves. Those who refuse will face tax penalties. No Republicans in the U.S. House or Senate voted for the bill, which Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller in Washington said his agency will vigorously defend. "We are confident that this statute is constitutional and we will prevail when we defend it," he said. ___

Rather than file a lawsuit that they will lose, perhaps a better use of Florida's taxpayer's money would be for that foster care. Estimates in my state is that it would cost $950 million to file the lawsuit. I guess they think they can afford THAT!

These were all separate incidences - - the N sign guy- 38 days after Pres. Obama was elected. This guy being an organizer of the tea party -the guy who threw money at the person with parkinson's -the people who shouted and harrassed and called the man with parkinson's a communist -the teabaggers (plural) who called black elected congressmen racial slurs -the teabaggers (plural) who called Barney Frank an anti-gay slur -the teabagger who spit on a black representative (he declined to press charges) -those who advocate an overthrow of the government -those who advocate throwing bricks through the windows of those who voted yes to healthcare. So you can add terrorists to the list with racists. But hey, you said you stand with them. No surprise there. Just like there was no surprise when it wasn't your last word on the subject. :thumbup:

Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it. By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry." The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system. And as the months go by and people see that all the lies about healthcare were just that and they begin to see all the positives about this, poll numbers will reflect this. Republicans who run on repealing this do it at their own peril. Perhaps it will be their waterloo. I will sure do my part to make sure it is.