Cleo's Mom

Their hatred of him is because he is black AND a democrat and he WON and they want him to fail so they can get more of their republicans elected and push their right wing, ultra conservative agenda (you know, the failed policies of the bush administration - i.e. tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of wall street, more wars we can't afford,etc.. - all those things that worked out so well). This isn't brain surgery. What don't you get??

It's a slippery slope. First abortion, then outlawing birth control, etc.. You know there was a time gynecologist wouldn't give birth control to single women. We could return to that. Of course you would probably support that.

There are those who would deny an abortion to a woman even if her life were in jeopardy due to it. Because these people are not pro-life, they are pro-embryo/fetus. And anti-women. They believe life begins at conception and ends at birth.

But you already expanded your government assistance from food stamps to include medicaid. But there is no way she will have enough money to pay rent and child care and go to school. It's not realistic and you always paint these unrealistic scenarios.

This anger and the movement resulting from it is backed by the republicans whose sole purpose is to have Obama fail so that they can win more elections.

You don't know what those who are opposed to abortion hope to accomplish by making it illegal? They hope to accomplish the saving of innocent human being lives. Nothing more. Where have you been? Nothing more? Oh, I think it is a lot more. It isn't just about stopping abortions, because legal or illegal, they will still happen. It's about control. And if they want control over women's bodies then they need to say what the punishment should be after they exercise that control and the woman defies it and "breaks the law". Yes, I want them to say what the punishment should be. Out loud. In the media and with the same ferocity that they oppose abortion. And if it's jail then have the guts to say it. That bishop on the Chris Matthews tape didn't have the guts to say it because he knew what the repercussions would be. He's a coward.

Like I said in another post, if you change the law, you own the consequences. If you force the 18 year old to have her baby, you own the result of what will happen to her and her baby. You can't just say she should suffer the consequences. But once again, you have no realistic answers. Just a lot of rhetoric bs.

Obama is spending and increasing the deficit to get us out of the mess bush left. Unfortunately it is necessary spending. Reagan ran up the deficit to the highest it had been up to that point. (Same as Obama) So did bush (same as Obama) Both did it with tax cuts to the rich. bush added an unnecessary war. BUT, AND THIS IS A BIG BUT.. deficit spending didn't matter during those two white, republican presidents, but suddenly it matters with a black, democratic president. It is the teabaggers, et al, who are hiding behind this phoney rhetoric of "disapproval of spending/deficit". They think if they make it about the agenda rather than the man that they can cover up their hatred for Obama who they never voted for and didn't want as president before he was even elected. And the sign by this organizer says it all. He made the sign before Obama spent any money (Feb. 09) So how could it be about spending/deficits???

Okay, so we finally have it folks. Here is Pattygreen's solution: Abortion is illegal. 18 year old pregnant girl is kicked out of home. Pattygreen got her wish to have abortion illegal so now all she is willing to do (government subsidies) to help this 18 year old who she forced to have her baby is to provide food. I guess she will be living out on the street, since she can't afford a place to live. Her baby might have health problems since she received no prenatal care and might die without post-natal care, especially sleeping on the street. Additionally, the 18 year old will have no choice but to sell drugs or become a prostitute to help pay for the things the government no longer subsidizes. She would not be eligible for housing, child care or job training. But wait. Maybe the religious institutions will fully pay for her housing, healthcare and job training. Yeah, that's it. Those who wanted her to have the baby will take care of her until she can get a good education and good paying job with healthcare and provide her with free child care while she works that job. Yeah, that's it.:rolleyes2:

Again, you don't get it. The point of the interview was, if you saw the video, was the priest had no answer beyond the "abotion is a sin". Same as you. So what. He doesn't need to have the answers for society. He needs to have the answers for his church denomination. The answer was this: If you want to be a Catholic, you must adhere to the Catholic faiths rules. Abortion is a sin and it's wrong and if you don't agree with them on that issue, then get out of the church. That's all he was trying to tell people. He did not need to come up with any laws or penalties against it. That's not his job. He did what he had to do within his job, and excomunicating the Senator was it. SO WHAT?? These bishops don't just advocate for the catholic beliefs. If they did, they would limit themselves to the pulpit. THEY ARE LOBBYISTS. DON'T YOU GET IT??? GEEZ!! They lobby, just like corporate america does, to get changes in legislation. As such, they have a moral obligation to follow through and tell America exactly what it is they hope to accomplish by making abortion illegal for those who choose to have or provide one. It's not enough for them to say abortion is a sin, they are saying to legislators: Make abortion illegal. IS THAT DISTINCTION LOST ON YOU??? REALLY!! And once they want to make it illegal, they absolutely have the obligation to say what exactly they want done with those who break this law. I want them to say outloud, in the media: " We want the pregnant women in jail looking out from behind bars." And if that's not what they want, then they need to say that, too. This isn't about denying communion, it is about what the catholic church hierarchy is lobbying legislators for and what the consequences of those laws would be. It is beyond dishonest to say: "I want abortion to be illegal but I don't know what should be done with those who break the law". They can't own the law without owning the consequences. They sure don't have any problem telling us what the consequences are of breaking the church's law so if they're going to venture out into the political world then be prepared to follow through.

In general, I want to note that I am not oppposed to ALL government involvement and help in the lives of the US citizens. Some help fore people is needed. Most is wasted and abused. Government is just TOO big now. They need to stop making the people dependent upon them with thier generosity that can't be afforded. Is THIS your answer? Sorry, not specific enough. Plus after going through 9 months of pregnancy and labor, the 18 year old wants to keep her baby or would you have laws to force her to adopt it out? So, answer which of the following you would be willing to have the government subsidize - keeping in mind that they can't discriminate between this 18 year old and others (like single, 30 year old mom with 4 kids, working poor dad with 2 kids, elderly grandma on disability, etc.) -rent subsidies -utility subsidies -food stamps -medical care -child care -subsidized transportation -job training -money for college

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom People in this country decide what laws should be followed and those in authority make the judgement of penalties for them. Why should this priest give his personal opinion on what the penalty should be for a woman having an abortion or for a doctor who provides it? Let the courts decide that. Courts don't make laws, they interpret them. Legislatures make laws. The bishop is a bishop, not a legislator. If the bishop wants to change current law, which he does, then he is advocating for changing legislation, therefore he is acting like a legislator. And to extend that, he needs to follow through and say what he wants to do after abortion is made illegal with those who choose to have or provide one. That's part of the legislative change - you can't separate it. To not carry it through is dishonest. When the bishops advocated for their language in the current healthcare bill they were acting like legislators so don't give me "THEY'RE NOT A LEGISLATOR" crap. And it is the bishop's personal opinion that abortion should be illegal so why shouldn't he be expected to know what to do about it if it were to become illegal? The bishops sure had no trouble writing legislation in the current healthcare bill. They were front and center with their "opinions". For this bishop to not know what the answers are beyond making abortion illegal is the biggest cop out of all. The bishop was only doing his job within the church. Catholics must adhere to the churches stand on issues or they are subject to excommunication and/or a refusal to be granted holy communion. If this senator had not exposed his belief that women should be allowed to have abortions, noone would have known except him and God, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT HIS VOTING RECORD AND PLATFORM ARE PUBLIC!!! and he could have gone on living his Catholic lie thinking all was well between him, God and his denomination. But, he didn't. He allowed all the world to know his stand on abortion and got what the catholic church feels was right. he didn't get any 'special' treatment that anyone else who is catholic would not have gotten. You don't abide by their bylaws, you can't be a Catholic in good standing. period. Like I said, no priest has the right to deny anyone communion because they don't know that person's confession history. Using this mind-thought then the priest should deny communion to those he knows are living together or those who publicly support capital punishment (most, if not all elected republicans). To do otherwise would be hypocritical and be giving special treatment to some. But of course, we know this doesn't happen and isn't even in the public discussion.

Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%) $644 billion - Social Security $408 billion - Medicare $224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) $360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending $260 billion - Interest on National Debt Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%) $515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense $145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror Defense and war on terror = $660 billion Welfare (incl. unemployment*) = $$360 billion *And you pay into unemployment while working.

As I've said many times before on R&R: It isn't the government that is the problem or spending on the least among us - it is greedy corporate America: 55 Billion Goes to: School lunch & breakfast programs WIC (Women, Infants, & Children) Food subsidies Food stamps Nutrition education Other food and health programs 127 Billion Goes to: Corporate funding (direct & indirect) Grants to Fortune 500 companies Big Agra subsidies (including sugar) References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Further Reading: School Vending Machines Size Matters Most Popular Posts Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds

I wonder if the pediophile priests, hidden and/or relocated and known to the bishops were denied communion?

Yeah, the teabagger movement is about government spending and the deficit and not about hatred of Obama and more importantly that he is black. Yeah, right!! :rolleyes2: Teabagger Bigwig Had N-Word Sign The "Tea Party" movement—a frothy mix of angry white populism and well-funded professional political campaigning—is about taking our country back from the socialists, and also about holding up terribly embarrassing signs. Here's one with a really bad word! And the guy holding the sign? He is Dale Robertson, who is the self-described "President and Founder of the Tea Party." He owns and operates TeaParty.org. So, yes, this is an actual organizer of the movement, and not just some dude. His sign reads, in full: "Congress = Slaveowner / Taxpayer = Niggar." Maybe he thinks he is allowed to use that word if he spells it wrong?

I am not catholic, and don't agree with alot of their doctrines, but this one is undeniably right in every christian denomination. Abortion is the killing of a baby. If the Catholic church states that you must be in agreement with their view on the issue in order to be in good standing with their denomination and be able to recieve communion with them, then every congregant of that church needs to have that same belief about abortion. If you publicly proclaim that you are pro choice, as this man did, then they have every right to refuse to administer communion to you. If you don't agree with your churches denomination about things, maybe you should attend elsewhere. No priest has the right to deny communion to anyone because he does not know the confession history of that person. Nor should he. And the eucharist should NEVER be held hostage. That is an outrage and violates the very foundation upon which the church was built. Additionally, if the priest has the right to deny communion, then to extrapolate on that, he should deny communion to those couples who he knows are living together or those who publicly support capital punishment. If only the people who agreed 100% with the teachings of the church attended, the pews would be empty. I don't know of a single catholic who agrees with everything. Even the clergy don't agree on everything.

Thanks :rolleyes2: Right back at ya!

We democrats hope that Palin runs in 2012. She is the gift that keeps on giving. She is her own punchline.

People in this country decide what laws should be followed and those in authority make the judgement of penalties for them. Why should this priest give his personal opinion on what the penalty should be for a woman having an abortion or for a doctor who provides it? Let the courts decide that. Courts don't make laws, they interpret them. Legislatures make laws. And it is the bishop's personal opinion that abortion should be illegal so why shouldn't he be expected to know what to do about it if it were to become illegal? The bishops sure had no trouble writing legislation in the current healthcare bill. They were front and center with their "opinions". For this bishop to not know what the answers are beyond making abortion illegal is the biggest cop out of all. I personally feel that the laws we have right now in place for people who murder should be the same for women who do it to their unborn babies, and doctors should be chraged with it as well. I believe that a life is a life whether it's within a womans body or outside of it.

Pattygreen: You still did not answer my question about the 18 year old who was forced to have a baby because in your "perfect" world abortion is illegal. -her parents kicked her out -she is on her own and pregnant Without government "interference" (i.e. subsidies) where would she get the following: 1) pre-natal care 2) post-natal care 3) an affordable place to live 4) affordable child care 5) ability to pay utilities 6) food for the baby 7) food for her 8) affordable transportation to job/school 9) money for school/training Don't expect much help from the baby's father. He might still be in school or working some minimum wage job. Or long gone. So, please answer these questions if you want all pregnant teens to have their babies but are so opposed to government assistance for poor people, portraying them as lazy, leeches of society who just don't want to work hard enough (they're too busy buying their expensive electronics, etc..).

Then start a new forum, like I suggested elsewhere, entitled something like: " Pattygreen's biblical interpretations and beliefs" because all your posts eventually get there and get way off topic. And those who wish to debate your ideas about God as it relates to your life could enter that forum. It's your inability to stay on topic, even the threads you start, that is unfair to those of us who have serious, intelligent, rational contributions. Otherwise, be honest in the new threads you start and instead of them saying "Why do liberals hate Sarah Palin" entitle it "Why my biblical beliefs allow me to support Sarah Palin". :thumbup:

What did the doctor mean it was "your drainage?" Also, if you aren't able to keep food down, why did you stop losing weight four months ago? Are you eating high calorie slider foods since regular food doesn't stay down? At any rate, if you are not keeping food down and can't drink Water - it is a serious condition. You could become dehydrated and vomiting is not good for your band or stomach. It's possible this is not band related and the vomiting is due to something else. Possible, but not probable. Make sure they look at everything that could be causing you to be unable to keep food down even if you didn't have the band. It sounds like you've had the right tests. You should call your doctor and tell him you want admitted to the hospital and you want to stay until this problem is solved. You obviously can't live like this. Good luck.

My last stuck episode landed me in the ER and an overnight stay in the hospital. I had tried most of the above suggestions and after vomiting several times I was still in a lot of pain several hours later. I am sure getting shot could not have been more painful than this stuck episode. I could barely talk to the admitting nurse in the ER yet alone fill out the paperwork. I got a total unfill and it will stay that way forever as far as I'm concerned. I have not put on weight even over Christmas. And I am satisfied with my 75 lb weight loss only 15 of which is attributable to the band. I get by on willpower mostly and changed my eating habits 4 years ago (banded 9/08). The band has not worked for me like it has for others. (I have a 4cc band and had a little over 1cc removed during this episode so I wasn't overtight but obviously restricted.) The band has caused me to develope a hiatal hernia, esophageal motility disorder, left shoulder pain and stuck episodes - all for 15 lbs. I am disappointed it hasn't worked for me like it has for others.

The working poor need to have 2 jobs then if they can't get by with one. Believe me, I used to be what you would consider "the working poor". They need to downsize, get rid of cable and their internet service and throw that money into a savings acct. instead and go to school one evening a week. Single parents are suffering because they chose not to be obedient to God and they got divorced. This is the tax payers burden? If they had just listened to God and believed that divorce should never be an option in a marriage, the 2 of them would have worked out their differences. They should have stayed married for the sake of the children and the taxpayer who must now support them with rental subsidies and foodstamps. This is what I mean, they don't want to sacrifice anything, because they don't have to. They would have stayed married had there not been a handout from the government to help them. Divorce rates were near zero before Roosevelts time of social 'help'. People stayed married because women didn't work outside the home. Women were forced to stay in abusive marriages because of economic necessity. And divorced, single mothers often qualify for government assistance because their ex-husbands don't pay enough child support. Additionally, how about those who are single parents who were never married? Oh, I know, they need to suffer for their sinfulness of having sex outside of marriage. What about Bristol Palin? Who would pay to support her and her baby if she didn't have a wealthy mother doing a million dollar book tour after quitting as governor? What about all the other Bristol Palin's who you think should be forced to have the baby rather than an abortion. Now you have teenage mothers. Who should support them? If they receive no government assistance who will pay for childcare while they work or go to school? Who will pay for formula and diapers and all the expenses of raising the child. Who will pay for a place for her and her baby to live. Let's assume she is 18 and her parents have kicked her out. Now what is she supposed to do?