Cleo's Mom

LM - at least these whacko birthers found a home in the tea party. I would hate to think of them wandering aimlessly throughout the country.

Thank you, LM. The picture didn't show up for me but that doesn't matter. We must call them out on their lies everytime. Whether it's an email or what is posted here. They get away with it far too often and people just accept it.

Patty: I am sorry to hear about your mom's health problems. I hope she makes a full recovery, but having gone through all of this with my mom, I know it is harder to recover as we get older. My mom had problems with blood clots in her legs after she had a stroke and became less ambulatory. They eventually put filters in her groin to address this problem. As I recall, it wasn't a big procedure and she did well. Maybe your mom would be a candidate. I wish her well.

The main predator of pigeons is hawks. Of course a sick or injured bird that is grounded is in danger from cats and dogs. Owls also will kill a pigeon during the night. As will a possum and a weasel. Baby pigeons and pigeon eggs are in danger from some types of snakes. So, yes, I guess they have a few natural predators. Also, raccoons, rats, and crows.

These animals have a place in our ecosystem just like all other animals. And the pigeon shoots are not sport nor are they hunting. They are just the wholesale slaughter of an animal for fun. Of course you are entitled to support this and to think it's funny. I think it's sad.

As you are aware, Pennsylvania is the last state that still shoots down pigeons as “sport”. While the 2008 legislature did not pass legislation to ban this egregious form of animal cruelty, we hope a bill will be passed in 2009 that will end this inhumane practice. In the meantime, pigeons are being baited, netted and trapped from NY streets and transported over state lines into Pennsylvania for the pigeon shoots. As you can see on the Pigeon Politics blog, Council Member Helen Sears has provided the statutes of law which may make the act of pigeon netting a felony crime. These pigeon shoots are held in secret, they are not advertized. Many of those who attend cover their car's license plate. They release the pigeons from cages. They also have turkeys tethered to stumps to be shot. Those who participate in these heinous acts consider themselves hunters and it is approved by the NRA. And it is legal in PA. If the pigeons don't die from being shot, they are sometimes gathered up and thrown into a fire.

Exactly. The republicans are experts at using fear and lies. And their recent RNC secret memo that I posted proved it. They can reduce everything to a one line lie that stupid people can remember and repeat ad infinitum, ad nauseum. That memo shows how contemptuous the RNC is of even it's own donors. It is breathtaking in its utter contempt and blanant display of their tactics of lies and fear. We have to become better at getting the truth out. Democrats are not very good at this. They need to reduce things to a single sound bite that the attention challenged americans can hear. All you hear is the conservative media going over and over the processes used in the house and senate. Do you recall them doing this under bush? When reconciliation was used several times? Did you even know it was used then? NO. But now that the democrats plan on using it - well, it's dissected microscopically. And of course criticized by the hypocritical republicans. And notice that of all the posts I posted, the focus isn't on the tea party racism, the contemptuous lies and fear of the RNC, or all the republican hypocrisy, no, it's on a misstatment of 9 votes.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Lying to millions of people? What dem agenda? Getting pushed where? :smile2: Move on, will you?

I haven't dodged anything. You just want to throw red herrings into the bigger picture to deflect from it. Yawn :smile2:

The fact that 9 democrats voted against this bill is irrelevant because there have been a few democrats who have voted against all of the bills proposed by the democrats and Pres. Obama. What IS relevant is that almost all the republicans have voted against EVERYTHING - even things they had previously sponsored in this congress or voted or supported under bush. They vote against it just because the democrats have the majority. THAT is the real issue, not the number 9.

What? That they got rid of him? As far as I can tell, only the Houston tea partiers disassociated themselves from him. And that ONLY 144 republicans voted no instead of 153? Neither changes the big picture.

From Ariscus99: Liberal hypocrisy on the "nuclear option". From ScienceBlogs.com My favorite part is where Biden says on the floor of the Senate that the nuclear option is "the ultimate example of the arrogance of power" and a "fundamental power grab." Harry Reid also says it was only being considered because of the "arrogance of power of this Republican administration." Now if the Democrats go through with it, he'll have to be the one pulling the trigger. It will be great fun to watch him try to justify himself. And equally fun to watch the Republicans in the Senate wax eloquent about the arrogance of the Democrats in doing what they wanted to do 5 years ago too. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I copied this from a previous post I made on the hypocrisy thread: Re: Hypocrisy of Republicans/Conservatives permalink Republicans, healthcare, reconciliation and the nuclear option. The nuclear option is actually a procedural plan in the Senate. In 2005, republican senator Bill Frist tried to get rid of the filibuster by using the nuclear option. He tried to do this to keep democratic senators from filibustering bush's judicial nominees. Republican Sen. Judd Gregg defended this nuclear option in 2005 as being a rule of the Senate. Fast forward to 2010 and the healthcare debate and the lying republicans are saying that the democrats are going to use the nuclear option to pass it. NOT TRUE (but when has that ever stopped them from saying something?) The democrats are considering using reconciliation as a option to pass healthcare reform. RECONCILIATION IS NOT THE NUCLEAR OPTION. So, if you hear republicans say it is, you will know they are lying. You will also hear republicans say reconciliation was never and should never be used to pass big healthcare program. Also false. Reconciliation was used to pass COBRA (the R in COBRA stands for reconciliation). Reconciliation was used to pass S-CHIP. In fact, most healthcare bills were passed with reconciliation. Reconciliation has been used 22 times since 1980, 16 times by republicans, including both of bush's tax cuts for the rich (2001, 2003). So, when they talk about the nuclear option or against reconciliation, the republicans are either lying or being typically hypocritcal.

It couldn't be that he was an embarrassment and exposed the tea party for what it was, uncovering their hidden agenda? Because that's exactly what it was!! And it's telling that from that whole article, that is what you take away.

There are a whole bunch of elected representatives who call themselves democrats who I do not like. Because the democratic party is a big tent with a full spectrum of ideas, there are going to be ones I don't agree with. The republican tent is small and growing smaller by the day. They all vote as one, for the most part. And if there are any so called moderate republicans left - they will be targeted by the increasingly far right faction who will run tea party and other extremist candidates against them forcing them to move further to the right.

Another guy gets paid for saying what I've been saying on here all along. I should start getting paid. The Tea Party Is All About Race I was going to open this piece with an analogy about the tea party groups and why they're treated seriously by the press and the Republicans. The analogy would go something like: "Imagine [insert left-wing activist group here] getting a serious profile in a mainstream newspaper, and imagine serious Democratic politicians appearing at their convention." The problem is, when I really evaluated what the various far-left activist groups are all about and compared them with the tea party movement, there really wasn't any equivalency. At all. Because when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that's left is race. The tea party is almost entirely about race, and there's no comparative group on the left that's similarly motivated by bigotry, ignorance and racial hatred. I hasten to note that I'm talking about real racism, insofar as it's impossible for the majority race -- the 70 percent white majority -- to be on the receiving end of racism. That is unless white males, for example, are suddenly an oppressed racial demographic. But judging by the racial composition of, say, the Senate or AM talk radio or the cast members playing the Obamas on SNL, I don't think white people have anything to worry about. This isn't an epiphany by any stretch. From the beginning, with their witch doctor imagery, watermelon agitprop and Curious George effigies, the wingnut right has been dying to blurt out, as Lee Atwater famously said, "nigger, nigger, nigger!" But they can't. Strike that. Correction. TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson brandished a sign with the (misspelled) word "niggar." So they're not even as restrained as the generally unstrung Atwater anymore. Most of the time, they merely imply the use of the word. Rush Limbaugh referring to the president as a "black man-child," for example. Every week, a new example pops up on the radio and somehow the offenders are able to keep their job while Howard Stern is fined for saying the comparatively innocuous word "blumpkin." Limbaugh, on the other hand, can stoke racial animosity on his show by suggesting that health care reform is a civil rights bill -- reparations -- and no one seems to mind. And no, the impotence isn't an adequate Karmic punishment for Limbaugh's roster of trespasses. The tea party is an extension of talk radio. It's an extension of Fox News Channel. It's an extension of the southern faction of the Republican Party -- the faction that gave us the Southern Strategy, the Willie Horton ad, and the racially divisive politics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. It's an extension of the race-baiting and, often, the outright racism evident in all of those conservative spheres. But unlike the heavy-handedness of Dale Robertson and others, the tea party followers are generally more veiled about why they're so outraged by our current president. In the New York Times this past weekend, David Barstow profiled a teabagger from Idaho: SANDPOINT, Idaho -- Pam Stout has not always lived in fear of her government. She remembers her years working in federal housing programs, watching government lift struggling families with job training and education. She beams at the memory of helping a Vietnamese woman get into junior college. But all that was before the Great Recession and the bank bailouts, before Barack Obama took the White House by promising sweeping change on multiple fronts, before her son lost his job and his house. Mrs. Stout said she awoke to see Washington as a threat, a place where crisis is manipulated -- even manufactured -- by both parties to grab power. Now you might be saying to yourself, I don't see the racism here. But if you eliminate all of the reasons for Stout's participation in the tea party movement as being contradictory or nonsensical, all that's left is race. Let's deconstruct. She claims to be against the bank bailouts, but the tea party is against the president's bank fee designed to recover the TARP money. They also appear to be against financial regulatory reform. None of this makes any sense. If tea partiers are against the bailouts, basic logic dictates that they ought to be in favor of getting the money back. Or do they prefer that the banks keep the money and orchestrate further meltdowns? Honestly, I'm not even entirely sure they realize that the bailouts and the recovery act (stimulus) are two different things. But they're also against the recovery act -- you know, whatever that is. She also told the New York Times that she's tired of politicians "manufacturing crisis." Right. Three things here. First, where was she -- where were the teabaggers -- when the far-right endorsed and supported a massive increase in the size of government, unitary executive power grabs and unconstitutional measures fueled by fear-mongering over the very remote threat of terrorism? Crickets chirping. The odds of being killed in an airborne terrorist attack are literally 1 in 10 million. You're much more likely to kill yourself than to be killed by a terrorist. Second, I refuse to believe that health care is a "manufactured crisis." People are going broke and dying every day. Even the most conservative estimates show that there are 9/11-level casualties each month due to a lack of adequate health insurance. The horror stories are readily available online. Just Google "health insurance horror story" and see how manufactured the crisis is. Third, look at any bar graph of the economy as of one year ago or any basic jobs number and tell me if the crisis is manufactured. Hell, Pam Stout's son lost his house! How can she possibly suggest the economic crisis was manufactured? I hate to single out one person, but Stout's incongruous anger is indicative of the entire movement. From the outset, the tea party was based on a contradictory premise (the original tea party was a protest against a corporate tax cut). And when you throw out all of the nonsense and contradictions, there's nothing left except race. There's no other way to explain why these people were silent and compliant for so long, and only decided to collectively freak out when this "foreign" and "exotic" president came along and, right out of the chute, passed the largest middle class tax cut in American history -- something they would otherwise support, for goodness sake, it was $288 billion in tax cuts! -- we're left to deduce no other motive but the ugly one that lurks just beneath the pale flesh, the tri-corner hats and the dangly tea bag ornamentation. Irrespective of whether the president passed a huge tax cut or went out of his way to bring Republicans into the health care process, the seeds of racial animosity from the far-right were sown during the campaign. In those lines waiting for then-vice presidential candidate and current tea party heroine Sarah Palin, their loud noises spread the pre-scripted lies, lies that entirely hinged on the president's African heritage. A white candidate would never be accused of being a secret Muslim. A white candidate would never be accused of being a foreign usurper. Only a black candidate with a foreign name would be accused of "palling around with domestic terrorists." In the final analysis, when you boil away all of the weirdness, it becomes clear that the teabaggers are pissed because there isn't yet another doddering old white guy in the White House -- like they're used to. That's what this is all about. By way of a postscript, one of the many faceless radio talk show wingnuts, Jim Quinn, this week called President Obama a "Kenyan wuss" who should be "slapped silly." The Kenyan lie and the "slap silly" insult aside, this president is no wuss. You know how I know? He's a black man who ran for president and won despite the growing mob of gun-toting militant white bigots like Jim Quinn who are sucking air in America. President Obama achieving this despite the hatred and threats against him takes serious guts. Guts that Jim Quinn and the tea party movement will never understand. from: Huffington Post.

The 9 "democrats" who voted no are probably DINOS. I don't support them. There are no RINOs because they all share the same brain and vote that way for the most part. Especially since Obama got elected.

I edited my post to make the change. Whew! Glad someone caught that mistake. ONLY 144 republicans voted no. Well, that's so much better.

Yeah, real radical stuff here. H.R. 4247: Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act Primary Source See H.R. 4247 on THOMAS for the official source of information on this bill or resolution. Summaries Congressional Research Service Summary The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. 2/23/2010--Reported to House amended. Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act - Section 5 - Directs the Secretary of Education (Secretary) to establish minimum standards that: (1) prohibit elementary and secondary school personnel from managing any student by using any mechanical or chemical restraint, physical restraint or escort that restricts breathing, or aversive behavioral intervention that compromises student health and safety; (2) prohibit such personnel from using physical restraint or seclusion, unless such measures are required to eliminate an imminent danger of physical injury to the student or others and certain precautions are taken; (3) require states and local educational agencies (LEAs) to ensure that a sufficient number of school personnel receive state-approved crisis intervention training and certification in first aid and certain safe and effective student management techniques; (4) prohibit physical restraint or seclusion from being written into a student's education plan, individual safety plan, behavioral plan, or individual education program as a planned intervention; and (5) require schools to establish procedures to notify parents in a timely manner if physical restraint or seclusion is imposed on their child. Requires that when the physical restraint or seclusion of a student is required to eliminate an imminent danger of physical injury to such student or others, school personnel continuously monitor such student face-to-face or, if their safety is significantly compromised by such monitoring, remain in direct visual contact with the student. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that schools operated or funded by the Department of the Interior comply with such minimum standards. Section 6 - Requires states, within two years after the establishment of such standards and annually thereafter, to: (1) provide the Secretary with their plan for meeting the standards, including a mechanism to effectively monitor and enforce them; and (2) provide the Secretary and the public with certain information regarding incidents over the preceding academic year in which physical restraint or seclusion was used on a student. Directs the Secretary to enforce such requirements by withholding education funding from noncompliant states, requiring them to submit a corrective plan of action, or issuing a complaint to compel their compliance through a cease and desist order. Section 7 - Authorizes the Secretary to award three-year grants to states and, through them, competitive subgrants to LEAs to: (1) establish, implement, and enforce policies and procedures to meet such standards; (2) improve their capacity to collect and analyze data related to physical restraint and seclusion; and (3) implement school-wide positive behavior supports. Requires LEAs to allow private school personnel to participate, on an equitable basis, in activities supported by such grants and subgrants. Requires state grantees, at the close of the grant period, to evaluate and report to the Secretary on their progress in preventing and reducing physical restraint and seclusion in schools. Authorizes the Secretary to allocate funds to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out such activities with regard to schools operated or funded by the Department of the Interior. Section 8 - Directs the Secretary to conduct a national assessment of this Act's effectiveness and report the assessment's findings to Congress. Section 9 - Gives Protection and Advocacy Systems the authority provided under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 to investigate, monitor, and enforce this Act's protections for students. Section 10 - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish standards for Head Start agencies that are consistent with the minimum standards for the management of elementary and secondary school students. Authorizes the Secretary to allocate funds to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to assist Head Start agencies in establishing, implementing, and enforcing policies and procedures to meet such standards. Section 12 - Authorizes appropriations for FY2011-FY2015.

The party of no strikes again!! Quick, grab your children. Some family values. More hypocrisy. House Republicans Support Restraint and Seclusion For Children by BarbinMD Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:25:23 AM PST When 30 Senate Republicans voted to protect corporate-sponsored rape, it seemed that we had finally reached the nadir of the Party of No. But yesterday, House Republicans gave their senate cohorts a run for their scum-sucking money when they refused to support H.R. 4247, the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act. The bill passed, but 153 House Republicans,(NEWS FLASH: ONLY 144 REPUBLICANS VOTED NO, AGAIN, THAT'S ONLY 144 - FEEL BETTER?) so intent on saying no to any legislation introduced by a Democrat, couldn't bring themselves to agree that children in school shouldn't be tied up, drugged, or isolated in order to discipline them. This should serve as a reminder to anyone humming the Kumbaya, bipartisan song ... you cannot deal in any meaningful way with people who are hell-bent on saying no to anything and everything to further their political aims.

Third graders running RNC insult own donors by kos Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 02:20:04 PM PST Feel the respect. The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism." The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.” Take a look at this slide: It's a bit hard to read, but the box on the left is titled "visceral giving", which is mostly small dollar donors. Teabagger types. The box on the right is "calculated giving", which are those buying access. For the former, the RNC calls them "reactionary", which is obviously an accurate description, but not the sort of thing you want your own party saying about you. For the latter, the RNC calls them egotists. Then, it turns out the RNC is run by third graders. Here's slide #7: The inmates truly do run their asylum. The use of fear tactics and even insulting your own donors. Why am I not surprised by these RNC tactics. This is mainstream republicanism, not even one of their extremists groups - like the tea party.

This is what you get from those who oppose Pres. Obama: Bunning's continued craziness makes even Republicans squirm by David Waldman Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 01:12:04 PM PST AP: Sen. Jim Bunning has again blocked the Senate from extending unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the jobless. [...] Bunning has been single-handedly blocking the stopgap legislation since Thursday, to the increasing discomfort of Republicans like [sen. Susan] Collins. Frustrated Democrats have been lobbing attacks at Bunning and his fellow Republicans for days. Geez, I wonder what that "increasing discomfort" is like. Maybe it's like the "increasing discomfort" of telling your kids they're eating Cereal for dinner because there's no more money for hot food. Yes, Jim Bunning has been continuously objecting to unanimous consent requests from Democrats that the temporary emergency extension be passed by unanimous consent, because he demands there be a debate on the spending. So when Republican Susan Collins asked unanimous consent this morning that the Senate proceed immediately to that debate, Bunning of course... objected. UPDATE: Republicans squirm. But not all Republicans! What is surprising is that Trey Grayson and Rand Paul, the leading Republicans to succeed Bunning, jumped on his one-man band wagon. Both of them applauded Bunning's actions. Paul's campaign even announced that it will hold a rally supporting Bunning's blockade of aid to the unemployed. And of course... Limbaugh: "Jim Bunning is a hero to people" The hypocrisy that is Jim Bunning: He claims he just wants this bill paid for under the pay as you go bill. But guess what?? Hypocrite Bunning voted AGAINST THAT BILL. So, zero credibility on that score. He claims that he supports paying for things. But he voted for the Iraqi war - not paid for. He voted for both bush tax cuts - not paid for. He voted for the medicare part D - not paid for. So, zero credibility there. But when does he suddenly want something to be paid for? That's right - when it's for those hurting - the unemployed. Hard working people who through no fault of their own are out of work. They didn't get a check this week to feed their family - but I guess that's okay with him. I think he got to see the Kentucky basketball game this week. Let's get our priorities straight. :scared2: But hey, he's a hero to rush, Jim DeMint and many other republicans who have cirlced the wagon around him. And these are the people the teabaggers want elected. Geez.

Obama Starts 2010 With 50% Approval More than 8 in 10 Democrats but less than half of independents approve by Lydia Saad PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama begins his second year as president with 50% of Americans approving and 44% disapproving of his overall job performance. This is well below the 68% approval rating Obama received in his first few days as president, and matches his average for all of December -- which included many days when public support for him fell slightly below that important symbolic threshold. The latest job approval score is based on Gallup Daily tracking from Jan. 2-4, 2010 -- the first Gallup Daily survey conducted entirely within the new year. "Obama enjoys 84% approval from Democrats, but closer to 50% approval from independents (currently 47%) and minimal support from Republicans (14%)." President Obama has been walking the public opinion tightrope represented by the 50% job approval line since about mid-November, with his rating wavering between 47% and 53%. However, even when 47% of Americans approved of Obama's overall job performance (in early December), slightly fewer Americans (46%) disapproved. Obama has yet to see his job approval rating descend to the point that more Americans disapprove than approve. Still, Obama's initial approval rating in his second year as president is among the lowest for elected presidents since Dwight Eisenhower. Only Ronald Reagan -- who, like Obama, took office during challenging economic times -- began his second year in office with a lower approval score (49%). However, Obama's disapproval rating is slightly higher than Reagan's was (44% vs. 40%). Pres. Obama's approval is directly tied to his willingness to tackle the tough problems. If you do nothing, you can't be criticized. Just maintain the status quo. I'm so glad we have a president who is willing to tackle the tough problems and not care about polls. He has often said he would rather work on the tough problems and be a one term president than ignore them in order to get re-elected. How refreshing.

She wanted to talk about healthcare and as it turned out I was going to one of those townhall meetings about healthcare with my republican congressman that evening, so I told her about it. She was interested. I live up north in the east.

I know what you mean. I have a healthcare bumper sticker on my car too and this lady stopped me to talk about it. We are so few and far between out in redneck country that we feel like a kinship with like minded.

So true. When I worked on the Obama campaign there was a guy from the city who said it was cultural shock when he moved out this way. I have to go into the city to see another Obama bumper sticker.