Cleo's Mom

And Pres. Obama is not trying to cap the salaries of all bank executives, only the ones who took TARP (taxpayer) money, which the majority of americans support.

We didn't bail out Hollywood stars or football players.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am telling you. The Stupak (democrat) amendment in the house and what Ben Nelson (democrat) in the Senate got was language to further restrict tax dollars for abortion beyond the Hyde amendment. The rest of the democrats in both houses believed that the Hyde amendment was good enough. The reason republicans didn't support the healthcare bill was because they oppose Obaman's agenda and want him to fail. It had NOTHING to do with abortion. Additionally, those few hold outs (democrats) in the senate opposed it for different reasons - lieberman, landrieu didn't want the public option and nelson wanted more restrictions on being able to buy a plan that covered abortions. Aside from these few DINOS any other democrat that opposed what was being offered was opposed to it because it didn't have a public option, it was too restrictive on abortion, and didn't go far enough to rein in the greedy health insurance industry. In other words, it wasn't liberal enough.

Liberals want conservatives to not only allow such atrocities to occur, but to pay for them through their tax dollars as well. How arrogant! Is it not enough that the law favors your 'choice'? You must also demand that those who oppose your 'choice' pay for it as well? How sick and demented is that?! This is not true. Since the Hyde amendment of 1977, no tax money can be used for abortion. And I am not aware of any bill being pushed in congress to do otherwise.

Again, I preface this by saying I am not supporting the catholic church but presenting this as yet another example of different interpretations of biblical writings: The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity. If you were to sit down with catholic clergy they would tell you that YOUR interpretation is wrong and their is right. This is the point many of us have been making. You BELIEVE your interpretation is right. Other religious denominations believe THEIR interpretation is right. And then there are those (like me) who don't care what the bible says with regard to how our government should govern. That is the real issue here and if you were to poll the american public, by a large majority, they do not want one particular biblical interpretation to be the basis for our country's laws.

This is why selling health insurance across state lines is a bad idea: Sellers would flock to the state with the fewest regulations to the detriment of consumers: Basically, what health insurance companies can and can't do right now is restricted by state (and sometimes local, but that usually only happens in large market cities) regulation. Now, insurance (and health care in general) is a business. Business needs to make money. The problem is that it's also something people need, and economically, it just doesn't make sense to pour millions/billions into small, rural, low-pop states. To encourage companies to provide services in these areas, states give them all sorts of handouts - either out and out grants, tax abatements, or friendly malpractice etc laws. Those monopolies in state medical insurance the Right likes to complain about? Those are usually what is called "natural monopolies", because usually the legal/economic climate does not justify a lot of competition. The problem with allowing these companies to sell to whomever is twofold. One, it allows health insurance companies to short-circuit the legal environment of the "foreign" state. For example, most states have laws against usury. Usury is painted as bad going all the way back to the Bible. It's defined as charging too much interest on loans. However, since you can now get a credit card (for example) across state lines, all of the credit card companies have moved to the state with the laxest regulation - North Dakota. This is why you are lucky to get 1.5% on a savings account, but can be charged 30% APR on your credit card. That would probably be illegal in your state but WELP CROSS STATE CREDIT. Two, it essentially short circuits the legislative process for the entire country. If the only laws that matter are those in the home state, then other states can't do anything to solve it, and since the federal government will have basically said "no" to fixing it, that leaves only those host states with any clout. Since the host state is probably not going to want to lose the jobs etc the now-captive industry gives, you get stuck with it. When this sort of stuff happens, essentially it's a race to the bottom as far as regulation goes, which is NOT good for consumers. In North Dakota's case, .2% of the US population gets to decide the credit card rates of the entire nation. Which isn't exactly democratic. It's bad enough when it's just money on the line; health care is people's lives. Also, most conservatives & republicans are states rights advocates. Each state sets medicaid guidelines. If you want the federal government to determine medicaid eligibility for all 50 states, then write your congressman and senator to give this power to the federal government and take it away from the states.

The american people are angry at the greedy banks. The Obama administration is pushing banking reform to rein in the "too big to fail" banks and to add common sense regulations that would help prevent the financial crisis and greed of wall street that caused our economic crisis. Now you would think republicans would support this BUT..... * The House of Representatives on December 11 approved a financial reform bill, but only by a close 223-202 vote. All of the chamber's Republicans and 27 Democrats voted against bill, which bank and Wall Street lobbyists fought for months. With congressional elections ahead in November, and Democrats suddenly anxious about them, lobbyists and Republicans will likely be less willing than before to compromise, having found electoral success in their strategy of obstruction and delay. * The House of Representatives on December 11 approved a financial reform bill, but only by a close 223-202 vote. All of the chamber's Republicans and 27 Democrats voted against bill, which bank and Wall Street lobbyists fought for months. With congressional elections ahead in November, and Democrats suddenly anxious about them, lobbyists and Republicans will likely be less willing than before to compromise, having found electoral success in their strategy of obstruction and delay. That's right - all of the republicans sided with the big banks and voted against reform. Now, who was that who said they were pure and whose votes were not for sale?

What conservative website did you get this right wing propaganda from? It is total BS. Here are the facts (but I know you dismiss facts when they don't support your views, whether it's the CBO report, a poll of Mass. voters or the following): The Iraq Connection Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01 The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming." But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding This conclusion was reached while bush was president, but again, I know that you will dismiss facts and instead quote opinions. Al Qaeda only came into Iraq AFTER we invaded the country and then used it as a recruitment tool, so the war in Iraq actually CAUSED Al Qaeda to come into Iraq.

Very scary, BJean. And exactly what happened here since Iraq DIDN'T attack us, had nothing to do with 9/11, didn't have WMD's and yet bush had most of the country thinking Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Most of the soldiers in Iraq thought that, too, for a long time. Those who didn't support bush were called unpatriotic and on the side of the terrorists.

Phil - people are always against something until it hits home. Case in point: If cheney didn't have a lesbian daughter what do you think his position would be on gays? Shoot them at sunrise. Case in point: The republican mayor of San Diego (Jerry Sanders) testified yesterday that he regretted opposing same-sex marriage before learning his daughter was a lesbian in a committed relationship. He was testifying in a case where two same sex couples sued to overturn Prop. 8. Case in point: Locally, we have a news anchor who found out early in her pregnancy that her baby would be born with fluid where the brain should be. She was told that babies like this don't live long - hours or days and may be born with severe deformaties (e.g. one eye). She considered herself pro-life. (read that again) but guess what she did? She scheduled an abortion and when her insurance informed her that they would only pay for an abortion if the mother's life was in danger, she went through with the pregnancy. Now why would someone who is pro-life schedule an abortion - BECAUSE IT BECAME PERSONAL AND SHE MADE A PERSONAL CHOICE FOR AN ABORTION AND SHE MADE ANOTHER PERSONAL CHOICE WHEN SHE WENT THROUGH WITH THE PREGNANCY. IT'S ABOUT CHOICE.

Take some time to review this poll. It will show that you don't have all the answers or the only analysis. This was taken of those who voted for Obama in Massachusetts and then either voted for Brown or stayed home. It includes democrats, republicans and independents. Research 2000 Massachusetts Poll Results | Progressive Change Campaign Committee

I'll trust the CBO's report as opposed to a southern republican, anti-Obama obstructionist.

I agree. Maybe this latest election will be huge wake up call to get things done using all the tools at our disposal.

Kartman and BJean: I agree with you both. I think one of the biggest mistakes Obama made was to continue to try to get bipartisan support for his agenda. It should have become very obvious very soon after his inauguration that the republicans had no intention of helping to solve this country's problems. The republicans have one goal: stand in the way of and oppose everything Obama wants in the hopes that he fails so that we can get more republicans elected and push their "party of no" agenda. I agree that he should be tougher in his methods for pushing his agenda. This healthcare should have been passed in August with a public option, but he let the dumbasses in the senate (Baucus) let it go until after the recess and we know what happened then. He needs to push a jobs bill (which by the way NO republicans voted for) and work on unemployment and screw the republicans. Do everything with reconciliation. That's what the republicans used. That's how they passed the big tax cut for the rich. And did you hear any public outcry about THAT? Of course not. Democrats need to act procedurally like the republicans. Forget yes we can, forget change. New motto: Just do it.

Republican motto: We support the status quo*. Hey, it's working for us!! *Status quo = inurance companies running healthcare; no clean energy initiatives (just more drilling and foreign oil dependence); global warming - what global warming? & keep bush's tax cut for the rich.

Also, let's not forget that those polls that show increasing opposition to healthcare reform include those of us who consider ourselves liberals and progressives and who believe that the current bill is too much of a sell-out to big insurance, is not progressive enough and that it doesn't contain a public option, which most people support. So, those liberals poll against healthcare reform, too.

The CBO has shown that not only will the healthcare reform NOT add to the deficit but that over time it will help to reduce the deficit. Now, I know you don't believe facts that don't support your opinions. So, your response will just be that you "KNOW" :biggrin: that healthcare reform will cause a mountain of financial debt. Maybe there's a bible quote about Obama's healthcare reform and how much it will add to the deficit.

Apparantley you did not see my other post where I showed a picture of a man with the teaparty movement selling buttons saying "proud to be a teabagger". Someone in the movement had to contact a business to print them. Also, read my above post about Fox new's Griff Jenkins. The people who don't believe Obama was born in the US call themselves birthers, it was only natural then that those in the tea party movement, with tea bags hanging from their hats, would be called teabaggers. If they don't like that term, then they should stop selling the buttons, stop wearing tea bags from their hats, stop holding signs that say "teabag washington before washington teabags you" and suggesting that people mail teabags to DC.

Of course they're not truths in your eyes because you've always ignored the facts that don't support your position and promote the lies that do. So what else is new?

Quote: Pattygreen: The results of this election shows that the people believe it is about time for regular folks to reclaim their government and turn the reins over to people whose judgement is sound, whose intentions are pure, whose votes aren't for sale. This could possible be the most naive, not to mention stupid, statement you've ever made. Who are the "regular folks, the pure and whose votes are not for sale" - the republicans? LMAO. REALLY, ARE YOU SERIOUS??? :ohmy: Will you please do some research and see who funds their elections? Big corporations, big insurance, big pharma, big oil companies, etc.. Pure, votes not for sale, regular folks. Yeah, right!!:biggrin:

Leave it to a neo-con to only care about it when a democrat is in the white house.

How hypocritical of you to make this about name-calling. I used the term teabagger that the movement itself has used to define itself. They should have given their name more thought. Too bad now. I don't see how that is calling someone a name. Oh, and BTW, Griff Jenkins from FOX news (your other bible) used the term teabagger in his request to "teabag washington before they teabag you" and urged people to mail a teabag to DC. Those who can present facts, those who can't quote the bible.

This election was about Coakley and the terrible campaign she ran and the well-run campaign of Brown. He did not mention republicans in his victory speech but spoke of independents (who outnumbered both democrats and republicans). Yes, republicans will win seats in November. The democrats have been saying that all year. It ALWAYS happens that the party in the white house loses seats in mid term elections. But let the republicans take over. THEY WILL THEN OWN ALL THE PROBLEMS. IT WILL BE UP TO THEM TO SOLVE THEM. BUT WE SAW THEIR "SOLUTIONS" DURING THE FAILED 8 YEARS OF BUSHCARE. AFTER THEY GIVE TAX CUTS TO THE RICH, WHAT ELSE IS THEIR SOLUTION? THE PARTY OF NO HAS NOTHING.

First of all, get all the junk out of the house. Don't buy it. If you have other members of the household who want it, let them go out to get it. Next, remember that eating with the band shouldn't be a struggle. Who wants to live like that? Make an appt. with your doctor about getting the proper fill. It might take doing it under flouro. Have you had an upper GI to see how things are going? Buy the good, healthy foods that you were eating when you lost the 100 lbs. You can get back to that type of eating. You did it before, you can do it now. Just take it one day at a time. Don't look at it as how much you want to lose. Just say "today I am going to eat these healthy foods" and then do it. It will get easier. But you do need to see your doctor to make sure everything with your band is okay. Eating slider & junk foods can be a sign of band problems.

Thanks. That's what they did with healthcare. They just put out a bunch of lies and kept repeating them: -death panels, pulling the plug on granny, a government take over of healthcare, socialism, nazis, rationing, etc.. And since most people aren't like you and I who will educate themselves on issues, they just believe these soundbites and scare tactics. And people like karl rove, rush limbaugh, glenn beck and sarah palin know they work.