Cleo's Mom

There are 10 white couples waiting for every one, healthy, white baby to adopt. And if there are more white people, then there would also be more white babies born. Your logic escapes me. And there are plenty of people who consider themselves conservatives who are glad to take any handout the government gives them. Don't make it sound like it's only liberals. Liberals aren't necessarily the ones who take the government help, they just support the concept of helping the least among us.

It is just your opinion because the facts don't back it up as to who voted for Obama. Yes, he got the black and hispanic vote. But he won because white people voted for him. Period. McCain got the white male vote, the christian right vote (also mostly white) and the wealthy vote. And the southern vote. Obama got everyone else. Since you have stated that you were not politically observant during bush, I suggest you do some research about the lies of his administration. There are no shortage of books written on the subject. All politicians promise things they can't deliver on. Obama thought he could get healthcare passed until the liars on the right hijacked it. I have already posted those lies many times. He said he would get us out of Iraq and he is. The marines have left. The rest will be gone next year. He promised he would keep the banks from going into a complete free fall and he did. And most of the banks have paid back the money with interest. He said there would be tranparency and he has opened up the white house visitor logs. He had the beginning of the healthcare debate on c-span but they it was logistically not possible when they broke up into many committees and met at different times in different places. But he did have his meeting televised with the GOP at their retreat. Now, that was great. I want all the votes in the senate and house to be televised and all the filibusters by the GOP to be televised too. You should support that because it's transparent. Obama said he would stop torture and he did. He said he would end don't ask don't tell and he started the ball rolling there, too. He would be able to get more done if the republicans wouldn't threaten to filibuster everything - by the way 121 times last year - a record!! I would definitely let them filibuster and let all of america see it. Under his administration we captured twice as many terrorists than bush did. Also, the only terrorist who were released from Gitmo to their homeland and then re-engaged in terrorism were RELEASED BY BUSH. So, I see Obama as doing the best job he can with the mess bush left him to clean up.

Our state has a closed primary - independents cannot vote. Most states have opened primaries where they can.

What, nothing to say about idiot Beck's secret code that he misspelled? Hmmmm. I guess he was just brushing up on his chalkboard skills and didn't really mean it.

You mean you don't know her plan? Well, giving up her baby for adoption (providing it's a healthy white infant - because that's the only demand) would be the first choice. But most women are poor and they keep their babies. So, they are supposed to work at least two minimum wage jobs while going to community college or taking the Red Cross's CNA program for $800. They should be able to save enough money for this during their 9 months of pregnancy (of course they don't have any other children who need childcare). They are to find an apartment for $100/week (these require roommates, but I'm sure there are plenty who want a poor, pregnant woman or screaming infant). Then after they become a CNA they take more training and work their way up to $14/hour at which point they can surely save money for a down payment on a nice house. They just have to make sure they don't spend money on things like cable, big screen tvs, and expensive cars. Childcare while they are doing on this is a little less clear. But surely there are tons of in-home child care along the bus lines (that they must live near in that $100/week apartment) that offer childcare for someone making minimum wage. So, you see, it's all very easy. THIS IS THE CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN/PATTYGREEN PLAN!!!

The republicans are emboldened by the one election of Scott Brown - even though he has distanced himself from both the teabaggers and the republican party. He did not mention the republican party when running or in his acceptance speech. Should the mean-spirited republicans take control of the congress we will go back to the failed policies of bush. Heaven help us all!!!

Who people listen to is telling. Here's your lying Glenn Beck: from Arianna Huffington: (emphasis mine) Read More: Abc This Week , Ailes Fox News , Ailes Huffington , Beck White House , Fox News Beck , Glenn Beck , Glenn Beck Arianna , Glenn Beck Arianna Huffington , Paul Krugman , Roger Ailes , Media News Following up on my back and forth with Roger Ailes yesterday on ABC's This Week, Glenn Beck went on his radio show today and attacked what I'd said about him -- and, in the process, ended up spewing a lot more misinformation. Beck's key point of contention was over my assertion that he had warned people that they were in danger of being "slaughtered" by the Obama administration and its friends. Ailes had insisted that Beck had been "talking about Hitler and Stalin slaughtering people, so I think he was probably accurate." Beck and his on-air partners, executive producer and head writer "Stu" Burguiere and contributing editor Pat Gray, tried to stick with that story. Press the play button below to listen and click here for the transcript. BECK: I don't even know if I've ever used the word "slaughtered." And if I used the word "slaughtered," if it wasn't in a context of Mao, Stalin, or Hitler, it was in the idea that the truth is being slaughtered by this administration... not saying that this administration is going to slaughter anyone. GRAY: Never, never. Unfortunately for Ailes, Beck, and Gray -- but fortunately for fans of facts, reality, and the truth -- we live in the era of DVRs, YouTube, and embeddable video. And what Beck actually said is recorded for posterity. Here is a rant Beck delivered on November 3, 2009 about SEIU's Andy Stern and the Obama administration (the "slaughtered" remark is at 9:30): And here's the transcript: BECK: I told you yesterday, buckle up your seatbelt, America. Find the exit -- there's one here, here, and here. Find the exit closest to you and prepare for a crash landing. Because this plane is coming down, because the pilot is intentionally steering it into the trees! Most likely, it'll happen sometime after Christmas. You're gonna see this economy come up -- we're already seeing it, and now it's gonna start coming back down again. And when you see the effects of what they're doing to the economy, remember these words: We will survive. No -- we'll do better than survive, we will thrive. As long as these people are not in control. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered! Not Stalin. Not Hitler. Not Mao. Not "the truth" being slaughtered. YOU. "They are taking YOU to a place to be slaughtered." Chiding me on This Week, Ailes said of Beck: "I think he speaks English. I don't know. I mean, I don't misinterpret any of his words." Well, if Ailes didn't misinterpret what Beck was saying (and if Beck didn't misinterpret his own words), I suppose that means they either weren't paying attention -- or they are willfully walking away from the kind of paranoid statements that have become Beck's stock-in-trade. And, perhaps, we also misunderstood or misinterpreted what was being said this morning when Beck's cohorts had so much fun mocking the suffering of millions of people all across this country. After playing a soundbyte of me on This Week, saying: "There's a lot of suffering out there..." Pat Gray jumped in: GRAY: What is this, Haiti? BURGUIERE: What suffering? I guess they missed that brief mention in the news about record unemployment, record foreclosures, record credit card failures, and the growing numbers of Americans going hungry. That, Pat and Stu, is "suffering." Right here in America, not Haiti. Finally, Beck asked me to explain why, in light of my criticism of him, I had invited him at last year's TIME 100 dinner to write a blog post for HuffPost. First of all, let me re-issue my invitation. From the day we launched, HuffPost has always welcomed blog posts from people with whom we disagree, and preferred a full debate about the issues to just preaching to the converted. At the same time, Glenn, as you would find out if you decided to take me up on my invitation and went backstage where our bloggers go to post, there are guidelines that have to be followed -- and they include a prohibition on conspiracy theories or inflammatory claims. So no post mentioning people being led to "slaughter" or being "the next victim" of an administration "killing spree." And no grand conspiracy theory in which you claim, as you did on your show back in August, to have deciphered a secret code proving that President Obama is trying to create an oligarchy -- although you spelled it "O-L-I-G-A-R-H-Y" on your chalkboard. These are actually very good ground rules for Fox News to adopt. I'll send you a copy and cc Roger. For context, it's good to remember that Glenn Beck didn't come out of nowhere. He's the latest example of what the great historian Richard Hofstadter called "the paranoid style in American politics," which he defined as angry minds that traffic in "heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy," and that see "the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms... always manning the barricades of civilization." Sound familiar? Beck preys on fear, political instability, and economic suffering, which, in turn, means that Fox News profits from fear, political instability, and economic suffering. The question I didn't get the chance to ask Roger Ailes is: you put Beck on the air -- would you want to live in a world in which Beck triumphed? In which his worldview won out? Is that a world you want your children to grow up in? UPDATE, 2/2/10: "Glenn Beck Update: The Backpedaling Begins" Secret codes, being led to slaughter? And these people get paid for this? That says a lot about Fox news.

More scary stuff - and this is who some people want to be elected? Daily Kos Poll Validates Republican Stereotypes Author: Matt Sussman Published: February 02, 2010 at 10:58 am Share What's the old saying? Stereotypes exist because they're true? One has to wonder if Republicans really believe that Obama stole the election, was born in Kenya, and that all non-Christians are going to hell. Naw, it couldn't be. Kos and Research 2000 polled a couple thousand self-identified Republicans and gave them some potentially mythbusting questions. Granted, several of the questions are loaded, and Kos himself may be reading too much into the "undecided" pool, but the results are nonetheless startling. Some marquee moments: • 53 percent believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama; 13 percent disagreed. • 23 percent want their state to secede from the United States; 58 percent didn't. • Only 8 percent said that openly gay individuals should be allowed to teach in public schools; 73 percent are against it. • While 42 percent are convinced Obama was born in the United States, 36 percent aren't. • 67 percent said that the only way to get to heaven was through Jesus Christ; 15 percent said one could also do that through another faith. "Given what their base demands," publisher Markos Moulitsas write, "and this poll illustrates them perfectly, it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no."

The extremist mind set of the teabagger, republicans and conservatives: Main Content Kos poll: A plurality of Republicans favor impeachment - Ben Smith: Kos poll: A plurality of Republicans favor impeachment February 02, 2010 Categories: Polls Kos poll: A plurality of Republicans favor impeachment A new poll from Research 2000, sponsored by DailyKos more or less with the goal of making Republicans look extreme, does a pretty good job of that. Some highlights: Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not? Yes 39 No 32 Not Sure 29 Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist? Yes 63 No 21 Not Sure 16 Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not? Yes 42 No 36 Not Sure 22 Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election? Yes 21 No 24 Not Sure 55 Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools? Yes 8 No 73 Not Sure 19

Hey, don't kill the messenger. :frown:

And just for the record, BJean, the Republican American is just another right-wing, republican ragsheet.

from Wikipedia: The Republican-American has a conservative editorial stance. It has accused Senator Chris Dodd of being "chief apologist for the communist tyrants,"[3] Senate candidate Ned Lamont of being a Stalinist,[4] and claimed "Marxists-Socialists" control the Democratic Party.[5] The newspaper trade publication Editor & Publisher criticized the Republican-American's editorial page for its "McCarthyism" and "red-baiting", and for an August 2005 editorial, "Is New Orleans Worth Reclaiming?" which called for the abandonment of New Orleans post-Katrina.[6] The New Orleans Times-Picayune criticized the Republican-American in an editorial titled "Yes, We're Worth It", labeling the Waterbury paper "heartless" and asking "How dare they?"[6] The Republican-American has also been critical of investment in mass transportation.[7] Its headquarters are located alongside the city's Metro-North Railroad station, and actually in the beautiful Mead, McKim, and White-designed building that formerly served as the city's railroad station. Fiscal conservative groups such as the Club for Growth have, on the other hand, supported much of the paper's editorial agenda.[8] Some of the paper's main competitors include the Connecticut Post, the Danbury News-Times, the Meriden Record-Journal, the New Haven Register, and the Torrington Register Citizen. However, these competitors do not cover Waterbury news, making the Republican American the only newspaper for the city of approximatley 108,000. There's those buzzwords that the conservatives and republicans often use: communist, stalinist, marxist-socialist. What no nazi?

Vomiting is never normal, band or not. When was the last time you saw your doctor? And did you discuss this with him? If not, you need to. Does it happen with certain foods or is there no rhyme or reason to it? Do you have pain before you vomit, like something is stuck? The best advice is to see your doctor who will probably want to do an upper GI to start with. Do not put up with this vomiting. It could cause problems with your band and your health.

You forgot to mention your source:

You forgot to quote your source for the above post, pattygreen:

Since we're back to the abortion topic: Scott Roeder who killed the doctor who performed legal abortions was found guilty and given life. The prosecution wants it to be life without parole for 50 years. It only took the jury 37 minutes to decide his guilt. This sends a message to all others anti-abortionists who are thinking of doing the same thing that they will be found guilty and punished.

Loserbob: I put out this question quite awhile ago: In the last 80 years what major program, civil, social, jobs, anything have the republicans put forward that helped the middle class? I'm still waiting for an answer.

Well, I'm always home, so I guess the armband will do. Thanks, again.

From allvoices.com (emphasis mine): Senators Sponsor A Bill And Then Vote Against It...And Just How Are The Republicans Not Obstructionists? By: amalgam80 Washington : DC : USA | about 9 hours ago What kind of politician co-sponsors a bill in Congress and when it’s time to vote, votes against it? The Republican type. The Republican Party likes to act like they care about your financial situation. They want you to think that they are the Party of fiscal responsibility and “better solutions”, but when you look at their record, Republicans have initiated one horrible idea after another. The first decade of the 2000s is becoming known as the lost decade of America. You know how the Republicans and conservatives want you to forget that 9/11 happened on their watch. A lot of that comes from the thought that no one could have predicted such an attack (which is a complete lie, complete and horrible lie). They want you to think the same thing about the economy. Everyone wants to act like no one had a clue how bad things were, which is also a complete and utter lie. People from as early as the late 90s (probably even earlier), were warning about exactly the things that went wrong with the economy in the late 2000s. When GeorgeGeorge W. BushBush won his re-election in 2004, many economists and just normal people like you and me knew exactly what was going to happen. In 1999, I graduated high school and started college at the University of Illinois at Chicago. My second semester there I took my first Economics course. There I was taught that the value of properties goes up and down. I was also warned of the coming economic crash (not the recessions that have happened since then, but an actual crash). In the year 2005 I was interested in becoming a real estate agent and took a class so that I could take the state exam to get my license. This would be the second time I was taking a real estate class. I also took one at UIC, but had forgotten many things by that point(I was told property value goes up and down there as well and was warned of the real estate bubble that was forming). During the class I took in 2005, both of my teachers were warning us that it was a bad time to be joining the real estate market. They warned us about sub-prime loans and what the big banks were doing with our loans. They warned us of the fact that there were regulatory institutions that were supposed to keep an eye on things but these institutions were either told not to do anything, didn’t want to do anything or were made weaker by cries of deregulation from the conservative movement. During this timeframe many economists like Paul KrugmanPaul Krugman were also sounding the alarm, but because Krugman was saying something the Bush administration was against, he was painted as a loony liberal. Screw the fact that the man had gotten a Nobel Prize for Economics. In 2006, many of the “conservative” economists were sounding the same alarms Krugman had been sounding for years. But the Republicans didn’t want to listen. During the Republicans’ reign at the beginning of this millennium, they passed two tax cuts but didn’t cut any spending. The “across the board tax cut” (that’s Republican speak for “tax cuts for the rich”) added about a trillion dollars to the deficit and did nothing for the crashing economy. It just gave the rich more money to hide in offshore accounts. These “tax cuts” were not really “tax cuts”. The way the Republican Congress paid for this tax cut was not by cutting taxes. No, they got a loan from China to pay for the tax cut. They also got a loan from China and other foreign countries to pay for the wars in Iraq (which was completely unnecessary) and Afghanistan (which was necessary and completely mishandled because the Republicans wanted you to think Iraq was more important than Afghanistan). The two tax cuts and the two wars were and are paid for by getting loans from other countries. Our tax dollars right now are paying a lot of money on just the interest of these loans. But the spending doesn’t end there. During the Republicans’ reign, they also decided they needed some seniors to vote for them, so they decided to pass Medicare Part D. This was supposed to help seniors get free or cheap prescription drugs. A worthwhile endeavor, but also a sloppy and corporate friendly endeavor. You see the government with all the new purchasing power given to it by Medicare Part D should now be able to negotiate cheaper prices for the drugs right. I mean, that’s how Wal-Mart does it. It’s part and parcel with this whole free market thing right. The more stuff you buy, the cheaper you should be able to get it. But that’s not how things worked out. As a favor to the drug companies, the federal government gave up their right to negotiate pricing. Isn’t that just great? By the time Obama came into office, the U.S. was in the hole for $8 trillion dollars. So what to do, what to do? Well to answer that question the Senate decided to set up a commission. The commission’s job was going to be to find out what to do about all our debt. The proposal to start this commission was bi-partisan. There were six Republican Senators that co-sponsored the bill with Democrat Senators. And as the beginning of this article said, when it came time to vote, the same six Senators that co-sponsored the bill, voted against the bill. The reason being that the commission was going to offer solutions, and that’s not what the Republicans want, not while there is a Democrat President and the Democrats also have the majority in Congress. So what are the solutions that this commission might offer? Well when it comes to budgets, you can either cut stuff out or get more revenue in, that’s about it. This is what Steve Brenan of Washington Monthly has to say on the matter: Look, if the federal government is eventually going to address the budget deficit, policymakers are going to have to a) bring in more money; :confused: spend less money; or c) some combination of the two. There are no other choices. The commission would ostensibly create the conditions for some kind of grand bargain -- Democrats would have to accept spending cuts they would otherwise oppose, and Republicans would accept tax increases they would otherwise oppose. Spread the pain around and everyone gets some political cover. These six Republican senators said they'd welcome a commission -- it was, after all, their idea to co-sponsor the bill -- just so long as the GOP isn't asked to make concessions or compromises at all. We've heard plenty of rhetoric of late about how President Obama just needs to reach out more to Republicans to strike bipartisan compromises. But how can anyone take such an approach seriously when leading GOP lawmakers oppose their own ideas because they may be asked to accept bipartisan concessions? The answer to that last question, though I realize it was a rhetorical question, is you can’t. You stop working with them all together. Budget related bills can be passed using reconciliation and that’s what should be done. Or let the Republicans filibuster whatever they want. Let them do it. Let them go on the floor of Congress and try to explain to the American people why we shouldn’t try to find solutions to budget deficits. I, for one, thinks that’s a win-win for the Dems. This author says much of what I have been posting on all these political threads because progressives speak to the truth. And this highlights more republican hypocrisy. I may have to start a new thread just for that since it is almost a daily occurance.

The hypocrisy of republicans is truly staggering. While they show up at ribbon cuttings for projects supported by the stimulus money they voted against and take full advantage of every government program or perk, they then demonize the government as the problem at the same time they say "but elect me to a position in it". :confused:

The financial part of the bill, scored by the CBO says it all. That's all the proof I need. You however just make wild accusations with no proof.

Every state and local entity that received stimulus money had more places than they could count where the money was badly needed. It kept jobs, it created jobs, work got done, roads and bridges got fixed. These are real problems that needed addressed. But of course you don't think infrastructure, education, police and fire need any additional money in these difficult economic times.

Read my post on the last page of the "Conservative vs Liberal" thread with the picture of the donkey and elephant. That article, written by a conservative, says it very well. He "gets it".

And, pattygreen, why are you still talking about healthcare? The president has moved on, why haven't you? Is it because with the jobs bill and the wall street financial reform and the tax on the big bailed out banks coming up for votes - and knowing that even though these things are VERY popular with middle america- that the OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS WILL ONCE AGAIN VOTE AGAINST THESE (AND THUS MIDDLE AMERICA) - leaving you to figure out how to defend them? Oh, and BTW, I haven't seen one letter to the editor or seen one person on tv - real, middle america people - support the recent decision of the supreme court.

EVERYONE: This last paragraph is a perfect example of the lies, distortions, emotional rants and fear-mongering that those on the right engage in. Say the lie often enough and people will begin to believe it's true. Lie and put fear into them so they oppose it. OOOOOOHHH - death panels, rationing, let's all be so scared of the big bad government. When meanwhile, the greedy insurance companies are getting between you and your care by denying coverage. NOW THAT'S A DEATH PANEL I CAN BELIEVE IN!!! And BTW - no one can make any accurate prediction about anything in the economy 10 years from now. It will depend on what the economy does between now and then with jobs, healthcare costs (if they're not controlled), etc.. Who knew bush would take a good economy and surplus and turn it into a terrible economy and a deficit in 8 years????