Cleo's Mom

Pattygreen: You have a heck of a nerve to make such a blanket statement like that. You criticize me for making the blanket statement that most anti-abortion people don't care about babies or people AFTER they're born? And yet YOU make blanket statement after blanket statement all the time about the people who receive government subsidies. They need to work more jobs, save more, just do more because they are lazy, shiftless and just want to live off the governement dole and do nothing all day but watch cable tv on their big screen tv's.

Pres. Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. The people clammored for help with the economy when he was elected. It was issue #1. They wanted him to do SOMETHING. So, he did something, he passed a stimulus bill which by all accounts started to turn the economy around and keep it from a free fall into a full fledged depression. But the people blame him for this. If he had done nothing, then the stock market would have crashed, there would be no money circulating in the economy, many more businesses would have gone under and the unemployment rate would be over 15%. Now, while you might think that is acceptable, had he done nothing then he would have been blamed for the above scenario and people would be screaming for him to do something. So, you see, he was in a no win situation. He can take the heat because he has said he will tackle the tough problems ignored by past presidents. And he doesn't care if it costs him re-election. How refreshing, when bush's attitude was - put out any lie that will insure my re-election.

Here's the thing that really ticks me off. The teabaggers act like deficits, government spending and expansion just happened under Obama. Of course we know that's not what the movement is really about. But let's take a look at what bush did: 1) He pushed through the biggest expansion of medicare in 40 years with medicare part D (trillion $$ over 10 year.) This was a giant giveaway to Pharma on the government's (read: taxpayer's) dime. Did you even see this debated in the media, scrutinized, or even discussed? WHERE WERE THE TOWN HALL SCREAMERS OR TEABAGGERS THEN? This was big government expansion and big spending, and big deficit. Oh, and btw, the federal employee who did the number crunching and came out publicly with the ACTUAL cost of this bill got fired (bush and the repubs put it at billions lower - made them look bad). 2) Not one person in almost 6 years, not one, asked bush how he was going to pay for the Iraqi war and no one cared. WHERE WERE THE TOWN HALL SCREAMERS OR TEABAGGERS THEN? This was a major part of the deficit bush increased. 3) The tax cut for the rich. Another big part of bush's huge deficit. WHERE WERE THE TOWN HALL SCREAMERS OR THE TEABAGGERS THEN? 4) The creation of the Homeland Security Dept. First, the name Homeland - reminicient of Hitler (can you imagine if Obama would have created this?) - which was one of the biggest expansion of the federal government in decades. WHERE WERE THE TOWN HALL SCREAMERS OR TEABAGGERS THEN? So all these issues that the town hall screamer and tea baggers CLAIM to be angry about happened under bush. Were they all in a coma then? Or is it a case of selective amnesia? That's why their protests now are so phoney. And don't tell me it is just so much worse under Obama - because the reason things are worse is BECAUSE of bush. I'm sure Pres. Obama would have loved to have inherited what bush did from Clinton. But he didn't. Cleaning up someone else's mess is never pleasant for anyone. Obama has had to use a big mop.

Ah, the lady doth protest too much!! Your caring for these children are the exception in the anti-abortion movement, and you know it. Did you adopt these children or did you accept government (taxpayer) money to care for them? I don't have any problem with your receiving money if you did but you are so anti-government subsidies I am just wondering. People, actual living people, are suffering all the time in this country. And their LIVES are diminished and many of them die due to their circumstances and you have shown your disdain and loathing for these people time and time again. They have made their bed so they should just lie in it. They are lazy, shiftless leeches on society. And that profiling of them makes me sick. That's why you can't be called pro-life. I have not adopted any children. But then I don't believe in forcing women to continue with a pregnancy they don't want. I give to many charities (money and food) who help the hungry & homeless in this country and also through Save the Children, as well as donations to the free care fund for our local children's hospital. I am also not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. I couldn't care less if another woman ever has an abortion, but if she chooses, I want it legal and safe.

Obama left the church. The teabaggers still belong. End of story.

away from them and it then becomes the responsibility of the tax payers. This country and others have plenty of these abused or unwanted children. In many cities, there are not enough good fosterhomes for these children. There are a couple of my own friends and family who have been foster parents and who have adopted children from this country and others, so I have seen it first hand. I think that all the pro-life people should step up and adopt these children.The term should really be anti-abortion because the term "pro-life" implies that they actually care about those already born, and they don't. If they were truly pro-life, they would care about those lives lost due to lack of healthcare insurance. But they don't. If they were truly pro-life, they would care about all the unwanted, mixed race, black and handicapped babies born that are not adopted. And they don't. Or the older children in foster care. And they don't. Or the homeless who die each year, and they don't. So the term pro-life is inaccurate. They are anti-abortion, period. They are already born. They are a life. Many of our big cities have plenty of abused, neglected, drug addicted.... babies. I don't see how they can preach abortion is murder and yet let these children stay in the situations I have seen firsthand. If they CHOOSE to let the little crack babies stay in bad situations, that means they are also pro-choice. The best way I heard it put is that they believe life starts at conception and ends at birth.

Plain:The difference is that the deficit spending under Reagan went to strengthening the military. Obama's deficit spending is going towards increasing the government stranglehold. I will split the point on Bush. He spent on the military, but at the end of his term, set TARP in motion. You forgot Reagan's tax cut for the rich when he lowered the tax rate on the upper income from 70% to 28% (read that again to let it sink in). So where do you think that lost revenue had to be made up? From the middle class in lost wages/earning power and increased unemployment since Reagan convinced corporate america that they could make more money by getting more work out of fewer workers. Plain:There will always be nutbags at every rally. What about all those "Bush = Hitler" and "Kill Bush" signs? I'm not simple-minded enough to believe that every liberal that disagreed with Bush thought he was the reincarnation of Hitler, or wanted to kill him. As I posted on the other forum - this man was not just a run-of-the-mill nutbag. He was the ORGANIZER of teabagger.org. And he did this 38 days into the Obama administration. My only question - what took him so long? It's obvious that he had hatred for Obama long before this.

A would-be leader in the Tea Party movement is seeing red after an act from the past has found itself in the light of a new decade and has commenced to promptly biting the misguided man in his derriere. Dale Robertson operates TeaParty.org, a popular website based around the needs and whims of those that call themselves “Tea Baggers,” a group of disenfranchised citizens that are utterly upset with the direction in which our nation is headed. A photo of Robinson practicing his freedom of speech during a Tea Party Rally on February 27th of last year shows exactly how the power structure in America is mapped out, at least, according to himself and the Tea Baggers. Dale Roberstons of TeaParty.org and his special brand of Texas Patriotism I guess this is how he and the other nincompoops plan on "getting their country back..." From Plain:Wrong. It's about middle America getting fed up with an uber powerful government frowing even bigger and fatter. Tea party members would (and have) condemned republicans that feed the government our liberty. George Bush was one of these men. So would have been John McCain. You are buying into the "teabag" hype that liberal outlets blast 24 / 7. They (and you) are trying to marginalize teapartiers because they're scared even more people will wake up and see the government as the bloated, inefficient beast that it really is. In case you missed my previous posting of this: This man made this poster 38 days after Obama took office. He is an organizer of teabagger.org. He is not just some yahoo who showed up. People followed him and joined his organization after this display. Now, after 38 days, we are to believe that this man just suddenly woke up from a coma to "discover" that Obama, our first black president and a democrat, was responsible for a bloated, irresponsible government, deficit spending, big government spending, etc.. when he had only been in office for 38 days?? He, and the movement, have zero credibility. They are phoneys. Because of this picture and because they were in absentia during the bush regime when all the things you say they are enraged about actually happened, including one of the LARGEST expansions of the federal government in decades with the creation of the Homeland Security department, deficit spending on wars and tax cuts for the rich, a huge expansion of medicare (part D -trillion dollars - hmm where were the town halls then???) and the Patriot Act that told us to give up our liberties to be safe otherwise we were on the side of the terrorists, not to mention unpatriotic.

Thank you.

This underscores that this country is more liberal than they think. Lots of people call themselves conservative but then when you start to ask specific questions, like do you think all abortion for any reason should be illegal, they say no. This goes for other questions about funding for public education, clean air and water, tougher wall street regulations, etc.. Their answers reflect a progressive thinking rather than conservative. This is why I urge ALL of you with common sense not to let the lunatic fringe, like Michelle Bachman, Glenn Beck, the birthers and most of the teabaggers take over this country. Make no mistake about it. This is not about the deficit or spending. And it's not a grass roots movement,either. It's a well-organized, well-funded effort to highjack this country from those who support the common man/woman and the middle class and instead replace it with those whose agenda is to make the rich and corporations richer at the expense of everyone else. And to legislate their religious belief on cultural issues. WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN. I am very involved in the political process. I educate myself about what is going on and we saw (and are currently living with) the disasterous results of the last administration. War, tax cuts for the rich causing rising deficits, a failing economy, wall street greed run amok, and the rich getting richer while the middle class lost ground. We see the mind set of those who would undermine what makes this country great right here on these forums. Our country sets itself apart from others because we care for the least among us, we provide a safety net. We provide people with rights, including those charged with crimes. That sets us apart from countries that just behead those they call criminals without trials. And it's what makes our country great. So, please go beyond just posting and become involved in the political process, if you aren't already. It can make a difference. Thank you. Okay, I'm done and off my soapbox.

Thank you.

There would be sting operations netting the pregnant women before they had the illegal abortion.

Dublin was the last two days of our trip. We stayed at Stephen's Hall. We had lunch at Judge Roy Bean's. We did all the touist-y things like the bus tours and horse and buggy ride and loved St. Stephen's Green. And of course we shopped in the very crowded shopping district. I would love to go back to Ireland but it just wouldn't be the same without my husband.

Actually, if the fat cats paid their fair share of taxes, you could probably pay less, but as this op-ed shows, they don't and the trend has been going on for a long time: Up until the Reagan years, the top income tax rate was never lower than 70% at any time since the early 1930s, and as recent as 2007, only 46,000 tax returns filed had TAXABLE incomes in excess of $5,000,000. There were over 96,000,000 TOTAL tax returns filed, so this is less than ½ of 1% of the total tax returns. Taking this a step further, the total taxable income on these 46,000 returns was just under $670 Billion, and the total income taxes were around $154 billion, for an effective rate of around 23%. In fact, those who filed tax returns with taxable income exceeding $10,000,000 had a LOWER effective tax rate than those who had taxable income between $200,000 - $9,999,999. I’ll repeat that once more: If you had taxable income exceeding $10 million, you paid at a lower tax rate than anyone with taxable income between $200,000 and $9,999,999. Just by doubling this (depending on how this is indexed and what rates are used at each level), you'd get an additional $100+ billion per year, no,? Why not call it the "fat cat" tax - who is going to side with those making over $5 or $10 million to give a little back for all they have? Add in something like higher taxes on non-wage income (why should people who work hard be taxed higher than those who are earning income off of accumulated wealth that most people don't have the luxury to have?) and this could go even higher. The argument about those who earn more give more to charity is nice but quite frankly, there are far too many people in far too much need of far too many things to have this be a valid argument in these times. If paying an effective tax rate of 50% (still lower than any time since the 1930s) will stop people from giving to charity, then that is pretty telling. Also, why not change the makeup of the estate tax? Did you know that for this "hot button issue that MUST be addressed" there were only 17,000 taxable returns filed in 2007 and under 14,000 filed in 2008?. That’s all. That would be hitting less than 1/3 of the filers noted above, or 1/6 of 1% of income tax filers. The biggest argument I've heard is how people have to sell their parents house or family business to pay this tax, so why not exempt those 2 things, as well as farms, with caveats such as the residence must have been lived in for at least 5 or 10 years prior to death, lower the threshold and make it a tax on untaxed and inherited wealth? Call it the trust fund baby tax, the lazy brat tax, the leech on society tax or something like that? It isn’t like exempting family businesses or homes would have too much of an impact anyway with the right structure, as stock, cash and cash-type assets make up the largest piece of taxable assets anyway so the theory of a trust fund lazy brat is even more applicable here. It is outrageous how the tax rate on the very wealthy has gone down over the decades and the average working person has to make up for this lost revenue.

I think we understand, Pattygreen, that you believe abortion is murder and killing a human being from the moment of conception. And that it is a sin. You can think that. And since you think that - then don't ever get an abortion and don't let your daughter get an abortion. And you have the right to pray for all those sinners, too. But aside from that - get out of the way of those who don't share that same belief - from believing that a fertilized egg is a person or that abortion is a sin. It doesn't matter what science you believe or what religion you believe about the embryo or fetus. The government does not assign full human status to either. Therefore, stop trying to impose your personal religious belief on our government who needs to stay out of our personal medical decisions. You don't want the government in our healthcare but you want the government in each pregnant woman's gynecologists office standing over the woman's shoulder and telling her what she can and can't do with her pregnancy. And then to carry it further, if she has an abortion you want this same government to throw her pregnant body into jail to give birth in jail. You don't have the right to advocate this. Just don't have an abortion yourself and make sure your daughter doesn't and STAY OUT OF THE REST OF OUR MEDICAL BUSINESS!!! WE DON'T WANT YOU THERE!!

Now explain to me how spending the trillions on weapons and defense and war is benefitting Americans as much as the piece of the tax pie that helps individuals does. If you can do that... I'll shut up on the subject. I'm not worried about having to shut up very much though. Not only the wasteful military and defense spending but the war spending. We are close to $1 trillion for Iraq and all that that unnecessary war has done is: -invite Al-Qaeda into Iraq when they weren't there before -cause the death of over 4000 American lives (we mourn the 3000 of 9/11 but MORE have died in Iraq). -increased our national debt (NO ONE asked how this war was going to be paid for). -caused us to take our eye off the ball - i.e. Afghanistan- and capturing Bin Laden which we could have done. -has not made us safer How did the Iraqi war stop the underwear bomber? Those types of incidents are our real threat and the money would be better spent on intelligence, border security and airport security not war.

I never referred to it as big government, that is your term. And bush is the one who expanded goverment with the hastily created Homeland Security (btw - homeland is a term used by Hitler) - one of the biggest expansions in decades.

If the white birth mother would have had an abortion if it were legal, she didn't want the baby, therefore she would have put it up for adoption. See, plenty of white babies for those who want a white one. If she had an abortion she did not have an emotional attachment to it and didn't consider it her baby. After pregnancy, labor and birth and holding the baby, she usually chooses to keep it. The stigma of an unwed mom is mostly gone. Unless you force her to give up the baby the supply of healthy white babies is not there. THESE ARE JUST THE FACTS. Also there are 36 couples for every available baby. So, unless you want to enact another law that says all unwed mothers must put their babies up for adoption, please stick with the facts and the reality that is out there.

There is far more waste in corporate welfare and military spending and the latter does not make us safer and no, I don't want to pay for it. Wasted Words, Wasted Dollars By Steve Cobble Special to Roll Call June 1, 2009, 1:25 p.m. Latest News As families across America struggle to trim their monthly budgets, they’re unlikely to cut back on milk and eggs in order to buy a second Jet Ski. Yet Blue Dog Democrats recently did something similar by cutting $10 billion out of the $540 billion in domestic spending proposed by President Obama, while turning a blind eye to nearly $664 billion in defense spending that independent reports show is rife with billions in wasted taxpayer dollars. Those on the political left disagree with Blue Dogs on numerous issues — the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, health care reform, seersucker suits — but elected officials of every political stripe should be reaching across party lines to eliminate waste in federal spending, make government run more efficiently and save taxpayers some money. Yet the Blue Dogs constantly undermine their own motto of fiscal discipline by ignoring the hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful Pentagon spending, helping neither troops nor taxpayers nor our grandchildren. This is especially true after so many years where military spending was the major growth area in the budget. Last year, the Government Accountability Office’s annual review of the top Pentagon programs uncovered nearly $300 billion in cost overruns. Numerous GAO reports have shown how the most expensive defense programs have failed to deliver on even modest expectations. Consider one big example, the Joint Strike Fighter, a plane originally conceived as a cost-saving fighter jet for the Air Force, Marines and Navy. Widely acknowledged as the most expensive weapons program in history, the JSF’s life-cycle cost will add up to some $1 trillion — a cost roughly equivalent to this year’s stimulus package. Yet GAO reports show that the JSF has exceeded its original budget by nearly 50 percent, due to multiple scheduling delays brought on by engine failures, electrical malfunctions and unsafe designs. And after years of delays, military experts aren’t even sure when the first JSF will roll off the production line. Whenever that is, by then the price tag will be huge. America isn’t going to be challenged in dogfights anytime soon. We face much more immediate threats: hundreds of thousands of workers losing their jobs every month, millions uninsured, a housing collapse, global warming, a ballooning deficit. Yet, instead of eliminating the Joint Strike Fighter and saving taxpayers a bundle, the Pentagon just accelerated the program, adding several billion dollars to next year’s budget. The Pentagon accelerated other defense boondoggles with questionable utility and enormous price tags, including the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships, whose cost has more than doubled to an eye-popping $500 million a copy. The Pentagon also staved off expected cuts of its gold-plated DDG-1000 submarines, which cost an incredible $3.3 billion each. The GAO has said that number could climb to $5 billion. And military experts agree that the United States faces no credible threats from any enemy navy in the foreseeable future. Failing defense contracts don’t do our troops any favors and drain hundreds of billions of dollars out of taxpayers’ wallets. Those that protect these wasteful programs aren’t supporting our military — they’re promoting the equivalent of the Navy’s infamous $600 toilet seat. It’s fiscal insanity, plain and simple. In the face of numerous crises at home and abroad, we need to put tired dogmas to bed. Republicans and Democrats — including the Blue Dogs — should remember that fiscal discipline is just a trite phrase unless it includes the Pentagon, too, where waste is commonly acknowledged but rarely weeded out. That's because everyone is always too quick to cut domestic spending. Add to this the $18 billion that went unaccounted for by Halliburton years ago in Iraq and barely got coverage in the media. I'm still waiting for someone to be held accountable. At least Pres. Obama has taken steps to eliminate some of the wasteful spending on unnecessary military toys. The poor are easy targets to berate and criticize. And characterize as lazy, shiftless, unambitious and leeches on society. They don't have many advocates or lobbyists or those who will speak out on their behalf. But big corporations and military contractors - well they have many lobbyists and we all pay for it and it costs us WAY MORE than what we spend on the poor.

And people did die then, and younger too. We didn't have social security, medicare and medicaid and more people were plunged into poverty. These programs have helped lift people out of poverty.

Infertile couples want HEALTHY, WHITE babies. Those babies are usually kept by the birth mother, not adopted out. For the most part (some exceptions) infertile couples do not want mixed race, or minority babies or those born with birth defects or crack addiction, etc.. That is why those babies go unadopted and end up in foster care.

My husband, children and I vacationed in Ireland for two weeks in the summer of 1996. It was a vacation of a lifetime. The country is so beautiful. We especially loved Dingle and the Ring of Kerry. Around every corner was what I called a calendar picture - you know those calendars of Ireland? We got a chance to meet one of my husband's relatives in Co. Cavan (Shercock). I am so glad we had the chance to go there before my husband died (far too young) 4 years ago. Now onto the band. I was banded in Sept. 2008 and it has never worked for me like it has for others, either. I have a 4cc band and my former surgeon overfilled me in 2 fills to 3cc's. I developed a lot of problems and he took out 1cc. I then switched doctors and am happy with my current doctor. I have only lost about 15 lbs due to the band and have not lost any weight in almost a year. My total weight loss is about 75 lbs from my highest but that is due to my own dieting, the 6 month pre-op diet and the liquid diets before and after surgery. Plus, I got stuck about a month ago and it landed me in the ER and an overnight hospital stay. All my fill was removed. An upper GI showed I have esophageal motility disorder, plus previous ones show I have a hiatal hernia. I had never had either before the band. Plus I get left shoulder pain from time to time, also band related. So, all in all, I am disappointed in how the band has worked for me, because I follow all the band guidelines and exercise every day. I hope you are able to resolve your band problems. Good luck.

Again, you always paint everything in black & white terms. And simplistic, unrealistic solutions. You have all the solutions for unwed, pregnant teens and for the elderly who need 24/7 care and for all the economic problems this country faces, etc.. You should run for public office. Why limit all these GREAT ideas to this forum? If you believe you have the solutions, then get elected and start enacting them.

I don't think Obama has done no wrong. He has moved too far to the center to suit me. He should blast back more forcefully against his critics, but that isn't his style. He should immediately end don't ask, don't tell. I'm not happy that we are still in 2 wars, but at least there is talk of the end in sight. There are things I wish he would do differently, but he is a vast improvement over the bush/cheney regime. And now that you "clarified" the term messiah, that term applies to how the republicans/conservative feel about Reagan at whose altar they worship. The man who started the decline of the middle class in this country.

If it's about spending, the deficit, blah, blah, blah, then why call him my messiah? I never refered to him as that, nor do I believe he is. It's a derogatory term used by people who hate Obama.