Cleo's Mom

Patrick Mulligan Paul Krugman is partisan political hack with no credibility outside of his own far left socialist circles. He's an advocate of Keynesian economic ideas that have been abandoned even by modern neo-Keynesian economists (who are still wrong, but at least have the decency to try to repackage Keynesian ideas in light of modern economic reality). Had he been born 50 years earlier he could have been one of FDR's socialist Utopian "brain trust" lackeys, and he would have been considered a pretty hip, forward thinking dude. Unfortunately for him, he came on the scene a generation later when his beloved economic ideas had since led to stagflation and astronomical government debt, and weren't considered quite so fresh anymore. And who is Patrick Mulligan? Just some right wing poster who posted his opinion on the Intellectual Conservative website. A poster? :rolleyes2: How many nobel prizes in economics did HE receive? His opinions mean absolutely nothing!! Zero credibility. :thumbup: These last couple days the right wing has really been giving me something to laugh about. From Palin talking from the hand to the homeschoolers who can't spell to some dumb poster. Keep it coming.

Not true. You just think so because abortion and homosexuality are not on your list of sins (wrong doings). Murder, stealing, lying.... these are probably on your list, so they are okay with you to regulate with laws. Well, they are also biblical principles. Biblical principles like abortion and homosexuality. We need a guideline (the bible) to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Without it, there will be chaos. If a man feels that lying is okay, then when he gets on the witness stand in court, he can lie and whose to say he can't. If we can't make it a law, then anyone will be able to lie and suffer no consequence for it. It is the same with every issue out there. Sins and laws are two different things. Religious institutions have the right to tell their congregation what they believe to be sins. But that does not mean that there should be automatic laws against what religious institutions believe are sins. There are many religions practiced in this country. You cannot discriminate for or against any one of them with regard to what THEY believe are sins. Therefore, if we start allowing ANY religious institution to determine what sins should become laws, then we would have to allow ALL religious institutions to determine what sins should become laws. Despite the fact that you believe this nation was founded on christianity, any legal test of this would require that no religion be discriminated against with this regard, and think of how many different practices call themselves "religion" in this country.

You post bible quotes all the time when they suit you. While you want the government to be involved in certain parts of what the bible says (like homosexuality and abortion) but you don't want the government to be involved in what it says about helping the poor. LAWS are not in the same catagory as GIVING. Laws need to be made for the safety and social governing of mankind. Giving is required of each person as he or she seems fit. "God loves a cheerful giver." Government can not regulate what each individual desires to 'give' of their own heart. And government should not take what they feel is appropriate from the people and do our giving for us. And our laws are made and based on what people in our secular society deem appropriate for a civil society. You want the sins listed in the bible to automatically become law. That's not how our government works, nor should it. While there are some things in the bible, like murder and stealing, that have become laws, these would have become law without the bible because they are necessary to maintain order. And government taking (taxes) from people and then distributing them as necessary IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR COUNTRY, CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT. For you to say otherwise is a very naive statement and shows a lack of understanding about how our government works and is supposed to work by law. But our government does not and cannot tell you what to give personally to charity.

More laughs for the snow weary :thumbup: GOP Ransom Note On Sunday, President Obama invited Republicans to a televised, open conversation on health care reform--just the type of conversation they've been demanding for weeks. How did the GOP respond? With something closer to a ransom note than an RSVP. We've got a copy of the "original" list of the GOP's demands to Obama—check it out. And if you like it, use the buttons below to share with your friends. Facebook Twitter Email from moveon.org

I thought everyone snowed in, digging themselves out and suffering from cabin fever could use a good laugh: Bryan Fotographer at Houston Press brings us the above awesomeness from Sarah Palin's rally for Rick Perry in Houston, along with the following caption: The "Get a brain, morans" sign guy must have been busy on Sunday. Way to go, "Homescholers".

Get a copy of the operative report for when the surgeon removed the band. Make an appt. with this surgeon when he returns and tell him you want the port removed at NO cost to you, including the hosptial and anesthesiologist's fee. And get it in writing. If not, then tell them you want ALL your records from all the procedures and you will be seeking legal advice.

Now that Lieberman is no longer the coveted 60th vote, if I were Harry Reid I would not only strip him of all chairmanships but I would relegate him to a windowless basement office with only a bare lightbulb overhead. Then he could turn republican and see how important he is there. Who cares about him anyway? I always thought he talked like the husband/father on that show "Alf". If the political winds show him losing he will just retire and then he can become a lobbyist for the insurance industry. Oops, he already is :cursing:.

From Cleo's Mom: Sorry, but the hypocrisy is all on the side of the republicans. I don't recall anyone on this thread saying they hated Sarah Palin. From Pattygreen: And I don't recall anyone saying that they hated Obama. Yet that is what you constantly say about those who oppose his policies. Do you really want me to post the pictures of the teabaggers and their signs starting with the one with the N word 38 days after Obama took office - long BEFORE any policies took effect? Plenty of hate in them there signs!!! And you're the one who used the hate word when you started this thread.

Sorry, but the hypocrisy is all on the side of the republicans. I don't recall anyone on this thread saying they hated Sarah Palin. But I have seen plenty of opinions, and facts to back them up, as to why she is unqualified to be president. SHE IS DUMB. We did dumb for 8 years under bush with tragic consequences for which we are still digging out from and which will take many more years. In addition to being dumb, she has a smart mouth and has nothing to offer but sarcasm. That's just what we need - a smart mouthed, sarcastic president. Plus dropping all the ing's on all her words. You betcha! Pleassseee. She asked "how's that hope-y, change-y" thing working for you? Well, my charts on the conservative liberal thread say it all. It's working well for me and for americans. And BTW, haven't heard too much yapping from the right since the unemployment DROPPED in January to 9.7. Sarah Palin is the gift that keeps on giving.:cursing:

I disproved the panic about the deficits with the above post by Paul Krugman. Now, the following (from dailykos) shows with charts and graphs the difference between bush and Pres. Obama. For those who think bush's policies don't matter anymore. Yeah, they do. Every day we're trying to climb out of the hole he put us in. And it's going to take years.

Well, the "experienced" (so you say), but stupid and poorly spoken bush ran this country into the ground and it will take us a long time to dig our way out of it. Those of you on the right can try to re-write history but you can't. And historians will remember bush for being one of the worst presidents of our time. Obama is head and shoulders above any of the republicans currently serving this country in any capacity. He is smart, level-headed, reasonable and keeps his cool. When he gave a major smack down to the republicans at their GOP retreat that was televized, it showed american who really had a grasp of our problems. Now he has challenged the republicans to discuss, ON TV, their healthcare ideas. I sure want to see that (it will probably involve a tax cut, somehow, as that is their only solution.) I say let's televise all the no votes by the republicans and their filibusters - show america how the party of no helps solves the problems. The jobs bill is paid back TARP money that will go to banks for loans to small businesses (which they need) and for tax cuts of $6000 for each new employee they hire.(which they also say they need). Those new buses had to come from somewhere. They didn't hatch out of an egg. The manufacturer of the buses might have hired more workers. So it increased the manufacturer's business. Multiply that by all the stimulus money that is being used across the country. You still don't understand the concept of tax money that goes to DC and then is distributed via your congressman. That is his/her job. To go to DC and bring money back to his/her district. It's federal money. States and local entities get these dollars, in ADDITION to money they raise. But they can't possibly pay for all the things they need with local taxes only. I'm just sitting back, though, and having a good laugh at the "leader" of the tea party - Sarah Palin, who talks to her hand. Or rather, reads from her hand. And this from the woman who has made smart mouthed comments about Pres. Obama reading from the telepromter. What a hypocrite!!! But then, what else do they have other than hypocrisy???

I agree, BJean. There has always been a group of people who have never accepted Obama as president. They were fractuous. But then in August when the healthcare reform wasn't passed (as it should have been except for that dumba$$ Baucus let it linger) and the reps went home to townhall meetings, this fractuous group found their forum and then the big money people got to organizing them. Now the group is a hodgepodge of all kind of people whose common denominator is hatred of Obama. They hide behind deficits, spending and other issues, but that's what it's all about. And the republicans have seized upon this movement and fed off of it, but at the weekend tea party convention, Sarah Palin told them to tone down the rhetoric and they were told not to have all those hateful signs. Because they just look like a lot of angry, hate filled lunatics, which they are. Too late, that ship has already sailed. No putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

So true, BJean, but apparently being the party of no is working for them. They are looking forward to big gains in the 2010 election. Apparently doing nothing and being obstructionists is popular with people. Like Obama said, if all you want it popularity and care about poll numbers, then don't tackle the tough problems, and just do nothing.

Paul Krugman, a noble prize winning economist, writes the following (my emphasis): Paul Krugman: The deficit ploy All the scary noise about deficits is just that: noise Saturday, February 06, 2010 These days it's hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we're told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren't stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they're reported as if they were facts, plain and simple. Yet they aren't facts. Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you'll see on TV. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest rates. The long-run budget outlook is problematic, but short-term deficits aren't -- and even the long-term outlook is much less frightening than the public is being led to believe. So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn't being driven by actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits and projections of those deficits haven't changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder. To me -- and I'm not alone in this -- the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn't been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized. Fear-mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear-mongering on weapons of mass destruction. Let's talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit that the federal government is running right now isn't the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions and been met -- appropriately -- with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment. The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs. True, there is a longer-term budget problem. Even a full economic recovery wouldn't balance the budget, and it probably wouldn't even reduce the deficit to a permanently sustainable level. So once the economic crisis is past, the U.S. government will have to increase its revenue and control its costs. And in the long run there's no way to make the budget math work unless something is done about health care costs. But there's no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade. Consider, for example, what the latest budget proposal from the Obama administration says about interest payments on federal debt; according to the projections, a decade from now they'll have risen to 3.5 percent of GDP. How scary is that? It's about the same as interest costs under the first President George Bush. Why, then, all the hysteria? The answer is politics. The main difference between last summer, when we were mostly (and appropriately) taking deficits in stride, and the current sense of panic is that deficit fear-mongering has become a key part of Republican political strategy, doing double duty: It damages President Barack Obama's image even as it cripples his policy agenda. And if the hypocrisy is breathtaking -- politicians who voted for budget-busting tax cuts posing as apostles of fiscal rectitude, politicians demonizing attempts to rein in Medicare costs one day (death panels!), then denouncing excessive government spending the next -- well, what else is new? The trouble, however, is that it's apparently hard for many people to tell the difference between cynical posturing and serious economic argument. And that is having tragic consequences. Thanks to deficit hysteria, Washington has its priorities all wrong: All the talk is about how to shave a few billion dollars off government spending, while there's hardly any willingness to tackle mass unemployment. Policy is headed in the wrong direction -- and millions of Americans will pay the price. So, you see, all that yapping coming from the right about deficits is just fear-mongering in attempts to win political points, defeat Obama and his agenda and win elections, and not grounded in economic legitimacy.

Here's the video of Sarah Palin "reading to the hand". Can you imagine the outrage if Pres. Obama had done something like that? Daily Kos: HandPrompter Hilarity: Read The Words on Palin's Hand Also, file this under more republican hypocrisy: Palin wants Rahm Emmanuel fired for privately using the word retarded (he has since apologized and it was accepted) while rush and beck have used the word "retard" in a demeanig way and she hasn't asked for them to be fired or for an apology.

Here's Sarah at her "finest" (or worst?). Also, if you saw her at the tea party convention, you would have seen that the only think she has going for her is mockery and sarcasm. That's exactly what this country needs - a brainless, mocking, sarcastic president!! Hey, you don't get through five colleges without picking up some tricks, right? Pics below the fold. Eileen B's diary :: :: The AP snapped this photo, and we can see the hand is clearly written on. From Stefan Sirucek on Huffpost, here's the complex information worthy of a hand cheat sheet: Energy Budget Tax cuts Lift American Spirits So, very Presidential, right? Wouldn't you think it would be easier to memorize six words than try to pull a lame Eddy Haskel stunt on national TV? And here I was bitching about all the coverage of her speech....for a while there, I forgot what a huge gift she is to the Dems. You're welcome, David Letterman! (And every other comedian on earth!) Oh, and hey, if you're registered, go over to Stefan Sirucek on Huffpost and give his blog post some attention. He deserves some kudos! Update [2010-2-7 9:51:43 by Eileen B]: Here's the CNN video of the Q&A where she checks her hand; then obeys her hand. At about 1:23, she checks her telepalmpter, then for the next minute or so....guess what she's rambling about? Energy and spirit, baby! Gimme an "S!" GIMME A "P!" "I!" "R!!!" "I!!!!!" "TEEEEEE!!!!" What does it spell?

I use a shrimp fork and baby spoon and often just use a salad plate.

Well, I think it is an important issue and I am glad that it is finally being addressed.

He is bringing them home from Iraq next year as promised. He never promised to end the war in Afghanistan. But he did promise to end DADT and he is taking the steps to do that.

And when will that be?

I am sure that when the military ended racial segregation after WWII there were those who thought it was a waste of time and money, too, to focus on that problem. I am quite sure that Congress and the military can tackle this problem as well as other pressing problems of our country at the same time. I mean look at the congress under bush. They managed to pass 2 tax cuts for the rich while borrowing money from China to fund 2 wars ( one unnecessary) and pass a trillion dollar (taxpayer) medicare drug plan. So, I think they can handle jobs, financial reform, health care and ending DADT.

Congress and the military get paid whether they investigate anything or not. I asked if you knew of any ADDITIONAL costs associated with this investigation. Apparently not.

Congress will earn their salary whether they tackle this issue or not. Right now they are working on a jobs bill, financial reform and health care. I will be interested to see who votes for and against these bills. I have also seen the needs of returning vets addressed from PTSD to brain injuries. Michelle Obama is very involved with military families and their problems and advocates for them. I agree that there are more important things to deal with in the military than if someone is gay, which is why the law should be repealed. I have not seen any additional costs associated with investigating DADT. If you have that information, please post it.

From the Huffington Post: Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television. I hardly think a West Point graduate is looking for "an easy way out". Why should anyone have to deny who and what they are to be able to honorably serve this country? Since 1994 about 12,500 service men and women have been discharged due to being gay. With our troops spread so thin, we can hardly afford to discharge these men and women The congress and the military are going to investigate this. That's their job. And they can do this while handling other important issues. It's not an either/or situation.

How arrogant of you to decide what God would say about our government deficits. You speak for him now? I recall that he stayed out of local politics and said to give unto Caesar... You post bible quotes all the time when they suit you. While you want the government to be involved in certain parts of what the bible says (like homosexuality and abortion) but you don't want the government to be involved in what it says about helping the poor. When anyone quotes those passages you are quick to point out that it doesn't mean government - oh, no - it means family. Well, where does it say in the bible that our government should be involved in making laws against gays or abortion? It doesn't - you just decide that for these issues it's time for the government to step in. Then you're okay with government. You're also okay with the government giving to corporations. Corporate welfare. Did you read my lengthy post about corporate welfare? Why don't you rail against THAT? At least with welfare to people you are helping the least among us, but with corporate welfare you are just making the rich richer. You like to paint liberals out as sinners who just want to be free to continue to be immoral. I am very insulted by that. I am a very moral person. I have already pointed out the many, many republican/conservative leaders who have engaged in immoral behavior, while preaching the opposite. HYPOCRITES! People have free will and a conscience and will have to live with both regarding their choices in life. You want to legislate what are sins and what is not. That's the job of the religious community, not the government.