Cleo's Mom

You know what pattygreen? You are just an elitist snob who looks down on those who are less fortunate than you. You forget your roots in doing so, too. And don't give me your "I worked hard, paid my bills, went to school, blah, blah, blah," speech. We've all heard it and it doesn't change a thing. Maybe some abuse the system but many are trying to better themselves, too. You advocate for wall street, big corporations and the insurance industry. When you talk about making people dependent and viciously attack welfare, you never rant about corporate welfare and all the free tax money they get. You criticize the welfare recipient who has cable tv but not the corporate welfare CEO who gets a $100 million bonus with our money. You oppose main street, middle class and poor people. Pres. Obama's stimulus has been proven to work. It was given to people to keep or create jobs. These people worked for these funds and they paid taxes, etc.. The stimulus kept our economy from complete collapse and from a full blown depression. I am so thankful we had Pres. Obama at the helm for this economic situation. The bank bailouts were started by bush. Did he want people to go on welfare and become dependent on the government by giving our money to banks who made bad decisions? The healthcare plan will reduce the deficit. It will help our economy by reining in HC costs. People who don't have insurance and can't afford it will be helped by the government to purchase it. You obviously don't care about people who can't afford to purchase health insurance but don't qualify for medicaid. I do. Tax credits for homebuyers and clunkers helps to stimulate the economy. Ask the home builders, realtors or car salespeople. Our economy needed to be stimulated. When it is, it makes the economy healthier and people who get jobs from it buy things and pay taxes. Additionally, I notice that you never take exception to all the tax breaks big corporations get. Our tax money. Oh no. Maybe some token lip service but you rail against anything that goes to your neighbor. None of these things makes Pres. Obama a president who wants more people on welfare and to be dependent on the government. That's just more right wing extremist BS to which you subscribe. It makes him a president who wants to solve the tough problems. And I'm glad he is tough enough and smart enough to try to solve them instead of ignoring them, which would be the easy way out.

from pattygreen:That cartoon doesn't suggest any of those points. Only to someone like you who can't think outside of race. I saw that cartoon, and the color of Obama was not even an issue to me when I saw it. I knew right away that the cartoon reflected a president who likes to give away our hard earned money to those who don't work. You on the other hand just HAD to see it as a racial dig. That shows me how hooked you are on the color of peoples skin. Too bad for you. I feel sorry for you. Save me your phoney sympathy. It's as phoney as all the teabaggers and their "outrage" about spending and the deficit.

Please provide video links where Pres. Obama says that he wants more people to go on welfare, line up for giveaways and handouts (btw, what are these free giveaways and handouts, because I might want to get in line? :smile2:), and where he says that he doesn't want people working or starting up new businesses or going to school/college or becoming better educated and earning a living.

Pres. Obama's picture on food stamps implies many things: 1) those who voted for Obama are on food stamps 2) Pres. Obama has increased the numbers on food stamps 3) black people are on food stamps to a greater degree than white people. The truth of the matter is that more white people are on welfare than black people. And since the unemployment has risen, the need for food stamps has risen, too. Many hard working families are now depending on food stamps to feed their family and keep their kids from going hungry. I fail to find the humor in that situation, but remember, the right wingers claim they aren't mean spiritied or cold hearted or hateful. However, I think this post proves that they are. :smile2:

Patty - you should have posted that Obama bashing post on the Obama thread, but since you posted it here, I will ask you: Whose picture was on food stamps when you used them?

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.

Press "PLAY" on the republican tape recorder: 1) start over (republican-speak for kill the bill) and if that doesn't work then 2) sell insurance across state lines 3) tort reform Now, that should solve all the health insurance problems? Right?

As a post script to my above post: The teabaggers claim to be about jobs, as are the majority of Americans. That is the #1 issue in all polls. However, when their newly elected Scott Brown voted ONLY to advance a JOB'S bill for a full vote, he received vicious attacks from the teabaggers. Now, why would that be if they're for jobs? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FOR ANYTHING. THEY ARE JUST AGAINST ANYTHING PRES. OBAMA PROMOTES. They just are so vehemently anti-Obama that he couldn't even make a "stay in school and study hard" speech to school students without it being attacked and criticized by them. Oh, they came up with their lame reasons which were nothing more than thinly veiled hatred of Pres. Obama.

Thank you. My anger is over these phoney protesters and the hypocritical republicans who pander to them. These protesters just hate that Pres. Obama was elected. Period. So they have attempted to use "legitimate" reasons to protest: spending, deficits, taxes. These people are actually paying less in taxes under Pres. Obama but that doesn't matter. While I understand that with unemployment being high people are hurting, these people are basically middle aged, middle class white people who have healthcare and just want Obama to fail. And despite controlling the presidency and congress many times over the last 30 years, the republicans have never reduced the deficit or the size of government. The last time we had a budget surplus was under a democratic president. But the republicans are experts at reducing a message to a single sound bite. The democrats need to do that more.

I will answer that question with a this column that says much of what I've been saying but he gets paid for it: Reg Henry I'm mad as heck at those who are mad Wednesday, February 24, 2010 By Reg Henry, Today's column starts with a confession: I may have to go to anger management classes. I need to manage becoming more angry. It is all the rage, you know. Just look around. Tea Party folks, politicians and talk show hosts have worked themselves up into a high lather of political indignation. But my problem is that I hate being angry. I think it is a poison for the soul. Before embracing my inner ranter, I prefer to go through the stages of wrath in the hope of avoiding maximum meltdown. I find that turning the other cheek should always be tried first before ever moving on to mild irritation, medium peevishness, creative sulking, pointed sarcasm, hot and bothered manner and, the last stage, impersonation of Mount Vesuvius. Unfortunately, many people today are in full eruption, threatening to turn America into a latter-day Pompeii. If this goes on, future scientists will find perfectly preserved bodies of guys in baseball caps reaching out to adjust their talk-radio dials. The situation in America today reminds me of "Network," the 1976 movie in which a crazed TV anchor tells viewers to throw open their windows and shout, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Not a good thing. Such unhinged, unfocused anger relieves everybody of the burden of serious thinking. That is precisely the case today. In most cases, people have gone from being flat-out asleep to mad as wet hens in the course of just one year. Gosh, I wonder what happened. Whatever the reason, thank goodness no racism was involved! The angry ones insist they have good cause for their rage and, of course, they surf the real misery of the Great Recession. But those who complain the loudest seem to be doing very well, thank you very much. Are Glenn Beck and some of the better-fed politicians in the ranks of the unemployed? It is true that the Obama administration is spending money like a drunken sailor, but much of it has been done to stimulate the economy in accordance with a highly conventional economic theory, without which millions more jobs would have been lost. Blinded by their rage, the president's critics always forget to mention this last part -- just as many of them at the time forgot to complain when George W. Bush was the toast of the drunken sailor community and finally presided over the ruination of the economy. (I am forgetting myself. The new Political Correctness insists that it is bad form to give the recent historical context of our current troubles, which makes as much sense as dropping a person on a desert island without food and, when he gets hungry, not allowing him to mention that he was dropped on a desert island.) In truth, I have become cynical about much of this newly minted anger. You say Obama trashes the Constitution? Where were you a few years ago when Bush and Cheney were up to their mischief? Not a peep of complaint out of most of you. For the record, my own feelings concerning the previous administration dwelled somewhere between pointed sarcasm and hot and bothered, and I would recommend that to all concerned citizens now justifiably vexed by the Obama administration. Free-ranging hatred, however, is always to be avoided like the plague it is. How did we get like this? As most of the anger could have been awakened as easily years earlier if the current naysayers were in the mood, the only logical explanation is that a party in power for eight years lost and another took over -- which seemed to some people positively un-American and an excuse for having a fit like spoiled children who did not get their way. Well, I, for one, have become angry with the newly angry. I am tired of the whole raft of lunacies -- the Birther movement, absurd claims of socialism, e-mails that malign the president on the basis of made-up facts, the whole toxic stew flavored by sheer and unadulterated detestation. I am tired of reading that some loser who crashed a plane into an IRS office is hailed in some quarters as a hero and a patriot. Some hero. Some patriot. Enough. It's time for reasonable people to take back their country and not let its fate be decided by those who shout the loudest. It's time to close our windows and quietly say in a spirit of good will: I am not going to support such hatred anymore. And do you know why? Because the second part of "United we stand" is "divided we fall."

Now we know why the hypocritical republicans didn't want a deficit reduction committee - they like to talk the talk but they don't like to walk the walk. The emphasis and ( ) are mine. Paul Krugman / Starve the beast: Fiscal calamity is the GOP's plan to shrink government Tuesday, February 23, 2010 OK, the beast is starving. Now what? That's the question confronting Republicans. But they're refusing to answer, or even to engage in any serious discussion about what to do. For readers who don't know what I'm talking about: Ever since Ronald Reagan, the GOP has been run by people who want a much smaller government. In the famous words of the activist Grover Norquist, conservatives want to get the government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." But there has always been a political problem with this agenda. Voters may say that they oppose big government, but the programs that actually dominate federal spending -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- are very popular. (By the way, these are all socialistic programs) So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts? The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed "starving the beast" during the Reagan years. The idea -- propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol -- was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait-and-switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit. And the deficit came. True, more than half of this year's budget deficit is the result of the Great Recession, which has both depressed revenues and required a temporary surge in spending to contain the damage. But even when the crisis is over, the budget will remain deeply in the red, largely as a result of George W. Bush-era tax cuts and unfunded wars. In addition, the combination of an aging population and rising medical costs will, unless something is done, lead to explosive debt growth after 2020. So the beast is starving, as planned. It should be time, then, for conservatives to explain which parts of the beast they want to cut. And President Barack Obama has, in effect, invited them to do just that, by calling for a bipartisan deficit commission. Many progressives were deeply worried by this proposal, fearing that it would turn into a kind of Trojan horse -- in particular, that the commission would end up reviving the long-standing Republican goal of gutting Social Security. But they needn't have worried: Senate Republicans overwhelmingly voted against legislation that would have created a commission with actual power, and it is unlikely that anything meaningful will come from the much weaker commission Mr. Obama established by executive order. Why are Republicans reluctant to sit down and talk? Because they would then be forced to put up or shut up. Since they're adamantly opposed to reducing the deficit with tax increases, they would have to explain what spending they want to cut. And guess what? After three decades of preparing the ground for this moment, they're still not willing to do that. In fact, conservatives have backed away from spending cuts they themselves proposed in the past. In the 1990s, for example, Republicans in Congress tried to force through sharp cuts in Medicare. But now they have made opposition to any effort to spend Medicare funds more wisely the core of their campaign against health care reform (death panels!). (I have posted about this specific hypocrisy on this thread)And presidential hopefuls say things like this, from Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota: "I don't think anybody's gonna go back now and say, 'Let's abolish, or reduce, Medicare and Medicaid.' " What about Social Security? Five years ago the Bush administration proposed limiting future payments to upper- and middle-income workers, in effect means-testing retirement benefits. But in December, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page denounced any such means-testing, because "middle- and upper-middle-class (i.e., GOP) voters would get less than they were promised in return for a lifetime of payroll taxes." (Hmm. Since when do conservatives openly admit that the GOP is the party of the affluent?) At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated but they're not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they're not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan -- and there isn't any plan, except to regain power. But there is a kind of logic to the current Republican position: In effect, the party is doubling down on starve-the-beast. Depriving the government of revenue, it turns out, wasn't enough to push politicians into dismantling the welfare state. So now the de facto strategy is to oppose any responsible action until we are in the midst of a fiscal catastrophe. You read it here first. Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times.

Thomas Barnes, Walter Brown, and Henry Morris used the argument for several years after the original report by Eddy and Boornazian was discredited (Van Till, 1986). I guess a lot of creationists still haven't gotten the word. In his debate with Dr. Paul Hilpman, on June 15, 1992 at the Royal Hall of the University of Missouri, Dr. Hovind applied the obsolete, shrinking-sun argument. Isolated from the corrective of continuing professional investigation and evaluation, the 'creation-science' community continues to employ this unwarranted extrapolation of a discredited report as 'scientific evidence' for a young Earth. Van Till, 1986, p.17 That was true in 1986 and is true today; it will be true for years to come. "Scientific" creationism lives like the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand; it has no effective mechanism to weed out error. An outstanding study by H. Van Till (Van Till et al, 1988, pp.47-65) beautifully contrasts the sober scientific handling of the findings of John Eddy and Aram Boornazian (who advanced the scientific claim that the sun was shrinking) with the reckless, speculative spin put on it by the "scientific" creationists. The reader might also consult pages 29-39 where Van Till gives us an excellent feeling for what scientific competence, integrity, and judgment are all about. After reading that, one understands why "scientific" creationists are rarely published in the refereed scientific journals. I ask that this thread NOT morph into an evolution vs creationism thread. Start a new thread if desired.

They can and do find some person on the fringe whose opposing opinion they will embrace rather than the consensus of the majority of educated and expert opinions. They will ignore the 95% who agree on something and chase after the looney 5% who still believe the sun revolves around whatever planet they live on.

The other two gifts (that keep on giving) being Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney. We can only hope they pair up to run in 2012. :tongue_smilie:

There's an online petition anyone can sign to get this man to resign. Bob Marshall - Resign Now - Signatures

Story Updated. From dailykos Republicans Furious Over Scott Brown Jobs Vote Staying above the fray is harder than it used to be. At one time taking a vote here and there with the opposition party while making token gestures to satisfy your base might have been a viable strategy for representatives looking to maintain their popularity in challenging electoral environments. And back in the day of the printed press, it was likely such stories would land in the local paper but not in the national news. In today's internets news cycle, however, people notice this sh*t. Hence, where Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe once might have been able to take a routine vote with the Democrats and have it fly beneath the radar, today Scott Brown was exposed to the full, insane wrath of the tea-bagging right wing base. Over at fair n' balanced FoxNews.com, which for some reason seems to have far more Republican commenters than Democrats, the people were not happy. What can Brown, the backstabbing RINO, do for you? Wolf in sheep skin got in. How do we prevent these Rinos from backstabbing us in Nov. 2010. So much for that 41st VOTE... what a loser... I knew he was a traitor.... Or at FreeRepublic: TRAITOR HE IS A BIGIME RINO WOULD THE LIBRERAL PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS ELECT ANYTHING ELSE? I UNDERSTAND HE IS ALSO BIG ON ABORTION. Looks like the CAPS LOCK is big over there. Or my favorite: The Senator has no clothes. Again. Drudge even went so far as to Photoshop Brown to make him look like Satan, and implied that this one vote meant that he "joined the Dem Majority:" The teapartiers are unhappy. Boo hoo. Well, maybe he can redeem himself by voting no on everything else. That should make them feel better.

It has to start somewhere. And if they create or save government jobs, that means something to those people. It puts money into the economy - these people who now have jobs spend, pay taxes, etc.. Some of these jobs might become permanent. Now about private sector jobs: There is a jobs bill being proposed that would give tax breaks to small businesses who hire and give banks incentives to loan money to them. Let's see how many republicans vote for this after all their yapping about it. They only got 5 republicans to vote to advance the bill to a full vote. I guess the other 36 don't want a vote on it. And BTW, the republicans are furious that Scott Brown (Mr. 41) voted to allow this bill to move forward for a full vote. After all, we can't have a new republican senator like him vote like he actually wants to solve some of American's problems when the republican party of no's real agenda is to oppose all of Pres. Obama's agenda and hope that he fails.

You just keep repeating these lies and ignore all the facts I have posted. Those posts, charts, etc. were opinions of experts in the economy and independent organizations. They have shown that the stimulus did work, it did turn the economy around, it did create or save jobs. It did help the GNP to grow. It did all that and you are the only one disputing it. Actually, there are probably a few "professional" quacks out there, as there always are, who march to their own drummer and comes out with whacko opinions, but that doesn't change anything. Now, you can continue to lie about this by offering your wrong opinion, but it is like insisting that the sun revolves around the earth and no amount of scientific evidence to the contrary will change your mind. You just come across as stubbon and without any credibility when you continue with this over and over again. Then there are the hypocrite republicans who publicly said the stimulus wouldn't create any jobs and then when they got the money talked about how many jobs it created. Now, were they lying when they said it wouldn't create any jobs, or were they lying when they said it did? Refer to my previous post for specific names.

If you come out publicly against the stimulus, then don't accept the money. No one is forcing you. But don't simultaneously criticize it and then pose for photo-ops with the check for projects funded in your state/district by the stimulus. THAT IS CALLED HYPOCRISY.

If you're one of those whose job was saved, it's important to you. And if you got one of those temporary jobs, that helps, too, because it might lead to a permanent job once the economy improves, which it is.

I doubt we'll hear anything from her about this because she has "selective outrage" about statements like this. It didn't come from a democrat or liberal so they get a pass.

I just found out that the "I can't believe it's not butter spray" that advertizes 0 calories for 5 sprays, 0 fat, 0 everthing actually has 860 calories per 8 oz. bottle. I was told to use this by my nutritionist. I would use it on everything, and not just spray, but I would pour it on baked potatoes and steamed cauliflower - thinking it had zero calories. Big mistake! Anything beyond 5 sprays has calories and fat. So beware.

Another right wing extremist's views on disabled children, abortion and women. State Delegate Bob Marshall ® of Manassas says disabled children are God's punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy. He made that statement Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood. "The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," said Marshall, a Republican. (a republican? :frown: are you shocked?) "In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest." Crazy, yes, but just remember, this is the same guy who also said that: *"[W]e have no business passing this garbage out and making these co-eds chemical Love Canals for these frat house playboys in Virginia." (with regard to contraception) *"It is as much a chain as ankle bracelets were as to African-Americans in the 1860s in this state. It’s just invisible. But it is a chain of death that we’re not going to escape." (comparing the economic recovery package to slavery) *"ometimes incest is voluntary" ((talking about abortion in the case of incest) *"[T]he woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime, because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman." (with regard to rape) from: dailykos

There are those who say the public option is not popular. I disagree and this poll of key states shows I am right: Here’s a rundown, sent over by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which commissioned the polls: * In Nevada, only 34% support the Senate bill, while 56% support the public option. * In Illinois, only 37% support the Senate bill, while 68% support the public option. * In Washington State, only 38% support the Senate bill, while 65% support the public option. * In Missouri, only 33% support the Senate bill, while 57% support the public option. * In Virginia, only 36% support the Senate bill, while 61% support the public option. * In Iowa, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option. *In Minnesota, only 35% support the Senate bill, while 62% support the public option. * In Colorado, only 32% support the Senate bill, while 58% support the public option.

Loserbob, I have posted about the republican hypocrisy with regard to the stimulus over and over again on the rep. hypocrisy thread I started. I named names and put it out there but there is no defense of this blatant hypocrisy. And people can say that the stimulus hasn't worked but the facts prove differently and the analyses by the economic experts prove differently. But that doesn't sway those who just keep repeating lies.