Conservative VS Liberal

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Smithtown Messenger Runs Photos Portraying President Obama & Wife as "Fred Sanford & Aunt Esther"

Posted by Janet Shan | 6:45 PM | View Comments

Long Island newspaper portrays President Obama and wife Michelle as Aunt Esther and Fred Sanford from "Sanford & Son" TV show.

Thought the negative and stereotypical portrayals of President Barack Obama had ended? Wrong. Photos of the president and his wife Michelle have surfaced in the Smithtown Messenger, a Republican newspaper, last week and sparked some controversy on Long Island. The cartoon, created by Phillip Sciarello, features "before and after" photos of six presidents and their wives, starting with Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter and ends with President Obama and his wife, according to WPIX.com.

One picture of President Obama and his wife Michelle show the couple hugging, while the second depicted the 1970's show "Sanford and Son" where Sanford's sister-in-law Aunt Esther, played by LaWanda Page, had her fists up facing comedian Redd Foxx.

Sorry, but the portrayal of the Obamas is despicable and plays on negative stereotypes. According to WPIX, many Democrats are incensed by the photos and have called for the newspaper to be stripped of county legal ads. Many critics have dubbed the illustration "racist" and "despicable," which has prompted many Democrats to call for the Smithtown Messenger to be stripped of county legal ads. Sciarello reportedly called the criticism unfounded and that the photos were meant as "political satire." Really? Were Aunt Esther and Fred Sanford the only two black characters available to portray the First Couple? I didn't see the other presidents and their spouses portrayed in any other manner but as themselves.

I guess that after photo of the Obamas was planted by someone on the left. LMAO.

All the after photos of the presidents and their wives - republican and democrat - just showed them getting older - EXCEPT for the Obamas.

Now let me think what makes them different -hmmm- OH! I remember. They're the first black president and first lady.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Breaking News: Republicans want to arm terrorists!

Gail Collins / Congress, up in arms: Members are more afraid of the N-R-A than the en-e-my

Friday, May 07, 2010

There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms.

"I think you're going too far here," said Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. He was speaking in opposition to a bill that would keep people on the FBI terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives.

Say what?

Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane, but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Mr. Graham accurately pointed out, "when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn't consider flying."

The subject of guns turns Congress into a twilight zone. People who are perfectly happy to let the government wiretap phones go nuts when the government wants to keep track of weapons permits. A guy who stands up in the House and defends the torture of terror suspects will nearly faint with horror at the prospect of depriving someone on the watch list of the right to purchase a pistol.

"We make it so easy for dangerous people to get guns. If it's the Second Amendment, it doesn't matter if they're Osama bin Laden," said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Mr. Graham wanted to make it clear that just because he doesn't want to stop gun purchases by possible terrorists, that doesn't mean he's not tough on terror.

"I am all into national security. ... I want to stop reading these guys their Miranda rights," he said.

The Obama administration has been criticized by many Republicans for having followed the rules about how long you can question a terror suspect before you read him his rights. These objections have been particularly loud since the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in the attempted Times Square bombing. No one seems moved by the fact that Mr. Shahzad, after being told that he had the right to remain silent, continued talking incessantly.

"Nobody in their right mind would expect a Marine to read someone caught on the battlefield their rights," Mr. Graham said.

Terror threats make politicians behave somewhat irrationally. But the subject of guns makes them act like a paranoid mother ferret protecting her litter. The National Rifle Association, the fiercest lobby in Washington, grades every member of Congress on how well they toe the NRA line. Lawmakers with heavily rural districts would rather vote to legalize carrying concealed weapons in kindergarten than risk getting less than 100 percent.

The Homeland Security Committee hearing on "Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms," concerned a modest bill sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. It would allow the government to stop gun sales to people on the FBI terror watch list the same way it does people who have felony convictions. Because Congress has repeatedly rejected this idea, 1,119 people on the watch list have been able to purchase weapons over the last six years. One of them bought 50 pounds of military-grade explosives.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and his police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, dutifully trekked down to Washington to plead for the bill on behalf of the nation's cities. The only thing they got for their trouble was praise for getting the city through the Times Square incident in one piece. And almost everyone had a good word for the T-shirt vendor who first noticed the suspicious car and raised an alert. Really, if someone had introduced a bill calling for additional T-shirt vendors, it would have sailed through in a heartbeat.

Gun legislation, not so popular.

Mr. Lautenberg's bill has been moldering in committee, and that is not going to change.

"Let me emphasize that none of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who nevertheless went on to argue against allowing the government to use the terrorist watch list to keep anyone from being able to purchase, um, a gun.

"Some of the people pushing this idea are also pushing the idea of banning handguns," said Mr. Graham, darkly. "I don't think banning handguns makes me safer."

The terrorist watch list is huge, and some of the names on it are undoubtedly there in error. The bill would allow anyone denied the right to purchase a firearm an appeal process, but that would deprive the would-be purchaser some precious gun-owning time. Before we subject innocent Americans "to having to go into court and pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back, I want to slow down and think about this," said Mr. Graham.

Slow is going to be very slow, and the thinking could go on for decades.

Gail Collins is a syndicated columnist for The New York Times

So while the conservatives approve of warrantless wiretapping, denying miranda rights, and stripping american citizens of their citizenship before being convicted of terrorism, they go into shock at the thought of denying those on the terrorisit watch list a chance to purchase guns, etc.. Oh, the horror

[loserbob 11]

Is Obama in trouble?

No one in the White House is celebrating over the latest polls. President Obama’s job approval rating has dipped below 50 percent in a flurry of recent surveys. Rasmussen has him at 46 percent; Quinnipiac at 45; in Gallup he’s clinging to 50. The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor Poll released Thursday had some heart-stopping numbers for Democrats: The president’s job approval was at 47 percent, down from 61 percent in April. Only 26 percent of respondents said they strongly approved of the president’s performance, compared to 38 percent in April. Just 39 percent said they would probably vote to reelect him, just 23 percent definitely.

To put this into historical context, Gallup’s Lydia Saad notes that:

Obama's initial approval rating in his second year

as president is among the lowest for elected presidents since Dwight Eisenhower. Only Ronald Reagan -- who, like Obama, took office during challenging economic times -- began his second year in office with a lower approval score (49%). However, Obama's disapproval rating is slightly higher than Reagan's was (44% vs. 40%).

(Washington Post)

From March 14th, Eisenhower served 2 terms, 1953-1961, so much for your poll results once again!

[loserbob 11]

Not that this story(Dwight D Eisenhower) has anything to do with topics today, I was just reading past posts and felt the need to discredit one more post from Patty, she tried to make a point but it backfired because he was a 2 term pres. so her poll results again mean nothing!

[LeighaMason 19]

"Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane, but not from purchasing an AK-47."

Keep in mind if you want to finance a car at my dealership I first have to check this same list before I sell you a car but I don't have to check it if I sell you a gun? WTH?

(By the way, I think every law obiding citizen should own a gun)

[BJean 16]

Liegha I too think we should all be gun toters. I'd love to pack heat everyday and flash it at anyone who starts acting like an idiot or threatening me.

I am pretty sure that a heckofa lot of this angry, mean garbage that gets tossed back and forth by everybody today would come to a complete halt if people knew that anyone who disagrees with them could blast 'em, Al Capone style, if they wanted to.

And funniest thing I've noticed... I'm taking my meds, my incision is healing nicely, I'm losing weight quickly and geez, I still find patty's posts revolting. Go figure.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

We're working more, producing more and earning less while the rich get richer. That sums up the republican economic policy:

from dailykos;

As Les Leopold notes in

The Looting of America

, the richest 1% of earners collected 8% of national income in 1973. "By 2006, the top 1% got nearly 23% of the pie, the highest proportion since 1929, " he writes. Moreover, the richest 1% now earns more than the bottom 50% of Americans. During almost exactly the same period, the pay gap between the top 100 CEOs and workers rose from 45 to 1 in 1970 to Himalayan proportions in 2006, reaching 1,723 to 1, Leopold says, citing data from Forbes.

But one of the most significant and least-discussed elements in the stunning polarization of America is the extent to which rising productivity has become unhitched from the way that its rewards are distributed.

Leopold lays out the astonishing data on this disparity:

By 2007, real wages in today's dollars had slid from their peak of $746 per week in 1973 to $612 per week--an 18% drop. Had wages increased along with productivity, the current average wage for nonsupervisory workers would be $1,171 per week--$60,892 instead of today's average of $31,824.

Our real average compensation is now about $25 per hour, including all benefits, representing a small increase from the early 1970s [in part created simply because of the sharp rise in health costs.] If it had risen along with productivity, it would be more like $41 an hour. The productivity bonus--about $16 an hour--is still AWOL.

Over roughly the same period, the ratio of household debt to income went from 55% to 127%, as Americans tried to make up for the loss of real wages with increased use of their credit cards.

American families have found themselves with vastly reduced time off the job, losing vacation days, sick time, and other leave. Until the recession hit, we were working the longest hours in the world.

While the numbers for income are highly skewed, those for wealth are even worse, as shown by these graphs.

[BJean 16]

Cleo's you're a veritable font of knowledge.

So many people who have seen their savings go down the tubes but who have an income that has kept them afloat still support Republicans, like they always have, because of the political myth in this country that Republicans want smaller government and encourage individual wealth.

What the Republicans have actually given us is encouragement of the extremely wealthy and no serious cutting of taxes or slashing of government programs.

When you get into a conversation with them, you realize that they're operating on the great Reagan-isms and myths that the Republican party has always claimed as their own.

Furthermore, it makes sense to think that the Democratic ideology of helping others is a threat to their personal fortunes. And if you look at the real evidence the Democrats haven't really been that successful in any meaningful socialistic-type reforms. But the thing that they promise that actually helps everyone but the extremely wealthy, is the protection they try to provide to middle class Americans from the greedy, dishonest predators of corporate America.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Cleo's you're a veritable font of knowledge.

So many people who have seen their savings go down the tubes but who have an income that has kept them afloat still support Republicans, like they always have, because of the political myth in this country that Republicans want smaller government and encourage individual wealth.

What the Republicans have actually given us is encouragement of the extremely wealthy and no serious cutting of taxes or slashing of government programs.

When you get into a conversation with them, you realize that they're operating on the great Reagan-isms and myths that the Republican party has always claimed as their own.

Furthermore, it makes sense to think that the Democratic ideology of helping others is a threat to their personal fortunes. And if you look at the real evidence the Democrats haven't really been that successful in any meaningful socialistic-type reforms. But the thing that they promise that actually helps everyone but the extremely wealthy, is the protection they try to provide to middle class Americans from the greedy, dishonest predators of corporate America.

Exactly. And as I've said before, when the middle class votes for republicans they do so against their own best interests because republicans have done nothing, nothing, to help the middle class. If you vote for them for social reasons - here's what I advise: don't have an abortion, don't let anyone in your family be gay and make sure they're all armed, and then vote democratic.

The following is in sharp contrast to the reganomics of the pie chart above. This is Obama-nomics and it's working, though you'd never know to listen to the Obama-bashing republicans.

When the republicans ask: Where are the jobs? - point to the last 4 months, but keep in mind they might need a remedial course in bar graphs.

[BJean 16]

Cleo's you're good! I don't have time to do the research but you take care of it so well.

I heard yesterday about the gains in employment this quarter. Wow. This means so much to America's recovery!

I couldn't believe my eyes and ears when I saw Republicans speaking about Obama being slow to react to the oil spill. They not only can't read graphs, they're completely nuts when it comes to criticizing Obama. They complain when they should be bragging. The political division they're encouraging is so mean and counterproductive for this country. I hope their selfish ways come back to bite them.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Cleo's you're good! I don't have time to do the research but you take care of it so well.

I heard yesterday about the gains in employment this quarter. Wow. This means so much to America's recovery!

I couldn't believe my eyes and ears when I saw Republicans speaking about Obama being slow to react to the oil spill. They not only can't read graphs, they're completely nuts when it comes to criticizing Obama. They complain when they should be bragging. The political division they're encouraging is so mean and counterproductive for this country. I hope their selfish ways come back to bite them.

I know. Their criticisms are unbelievable. They just want to make a problem where there isn't any. They wanted Pres. Obama to react slowly to the oil spill so as to say it was like his Katrina. But the facts don't support it. Not that that stops them, but to intelligent, thinking people it just shows how desperate and pathetic they are.

They will make some election gains in 2010, as the opposition party always does. But if the economy continues to improve, they will get bit in 2012.

[LeighaMason 19]

Liegha I too think we should all be gun toters. I'd love to pack heat everyday and flash it at anyone who starts acting like an idiot or threatening me.

I am pretty sure that a heckofa lot of this angry, mean garbage that gets tossed back and forth by everybody today would come to a complete halt if people knew that anyone who disagrees with them could blast 'em, Al Capone style, if they wanted to.

And funniest thing I've noticed... I'm taking my meds, my incision is healing nicely, I'm losing weight quickly and geez, I still find patty's posts revolting. Go figure.

I am going to have to change my position and side with the NRA (as much as it pains me to say those words) I was thinking about this last night and the reason we have the right to bear arms is to keep the government in check. If this law passed technically the government could put the names of dissenters on the list and compel us to agree with them. So in the name of our freedoms I am going to have to say I am against having to check a list to buy a gun.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You just can't make this stuff up. I know that most of the guys on these boards who need "help" with their luggage while traveling think of rentboy.com as the first place to look.

Another glaring example of hypocrites on the right. And this guy preaches that you can change gays to straight. Maybe that's what he was trying to do ...over and over again.

Christian right leader George Rekers takes vacation with "rent boy"

May 6 2010

George Rekers and "Lucien" at Miami International Airport.

The pictures on the Rentboy.com profile show a shirtless young man with delicate features, guileless eyes, and sun-kissed, hairless skin. The profile touts his "smooth, sweet, tight a$$" and "perfectly built 8 inch c**k (uncut)" and explains he is "sensual," "wild," and "up for anything" — as long you ask first. And as long as you pay.

George Rekers and "Lucien" at Miami International Airport.

On April 13, the "rent boy" (whom we'll call Lucien) arrived at Miami International Airport on Iberian Airlines Flight 6123, after a ten-day, fully subsidized trip to Europe. He was soon followed out of customs by an old man with an atavistic mustache and a desperate blond comb-over, pushing an overburdened baggage cart.

That man was George Alan Rekers, of North Miami — the callboy's client and, as it happens, one of America's most prominent anti-gay activists. Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.

Reached by New Times before a trip to Bermuda, Rekers said he learned Lucien was a prostitute only midway through their vacation. "I had surgery," Rekers said, "and I can't lift luggage. That's why I hired him." (Medical problems didn't stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.)

Yet Rekers wouldn't deny he met his slender, blond escort at Rentboy.com — which features homepage images of men in bondage and grainy videos of crotch-rubbing twinks — and Lucien confirmed it.

At the small western Miami townhome he shares with a roommate, a nervous Lucien expressed surprise when we told him that Rekers denied knowing about his line of work from the beginning. "He should've been able to tell you that," he said, fidgeting and fixing his eyes on his knees. "But that's up to him."

For decades, George Alan Rekers has been a general in the culture wars, though his work has often been behind the scenes. In 1983, he and James Dobson, America's best-known homophobe, formed the Family Research Council, a D.C.-based, rabidly Christian, and vehemently anti-gay lobbying group that has become a standard-bearer of the nation's extreme right wing. Its annual Values Summit is considered a litmus test for Republican presidential hopefuls, and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have spoken there. (The Family Research Council would not comment about Rekers's Euro-trip.)

He has also influenced American government, serving in advisory roles with Congress, the White House, and the Department of Health and Human Services and testifying as a state's witness in favor of Florida's gay adoption ban. A former research fellow at Harvard University and a distinguished professor of neuropsychiatry at the University of South Carolina, Rekers has published papers and books by the hundreds, with titles like Who Am I? Lord and Growing Up Straight: What Families Should Know About Homosexuality.

"While he keeps a low public profile, his fingerprints are on almost every anti-gay effort to demean and dehumanize LGBT people," says Wayne Besen, a gay rights advocate in New York City and the executive director of Truth Wins Out, which investigates the anti-gay movement. "His work is ubiquitously cited by lobby groups that work to deny equality to LGBT Americans. Rekers has caused a great deal of harm to gay and lesbian individuals."

Rekers is a board member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), an organization that systematically attempts to turn gay people straight. And the Huffington Post recently singled out Rekers as a member of the American College of Pediatricians — an official-sounding outfit in Gainesville that purveys lurid, youth-directed literature accusing gays of en masse coprophilia. (In an email, the college's Lisa Hawkins wrote, "ACPeds feels privileged to have a scholar of Dr. Rekers' stature affiliated with our organization. I am sure you will find Prof. Rekers to be an immaculate clinician/scholar, and a warm human being.")

Rekers lectures worldwide, from Europe to the Middle East, on teen sexuality. Yet during his ten-day sojourn with Lucien to London and Madrid, he had no lectures scheduled. Both men deny having sex on the trip, and emails exchanged between the two before their jaunt are cautiously worded.

"I'd like to propose another trip to Rome, Italy, for a week or more," Rekers wrote in an email dated March 21 obtained by New Times. "This is so exciting to have a nice Travel Assistant and traveling companion! Wow! I'm so glad I met you."

"I called and talked to the reservation guy in London and reserved a room with two twin beds," Rekers wrote on March 26.

"Now that I'm packed, tomorrow I'll work on completing my income tax return," Rekers wrote two days later. "Not fun... But I'll just remind myself that the fun trip is coming soon."

In his interview with New Times, Lucien didn't want to impugn his client, but he made it clear they met through Rentboy.com, which is the only website on which he advertises his services. Neither Google nor any other search engine picks up individual Rentboy.com profiles, any more than they pick up individual profiles on eHarmony or Match.com. You cannot just happen upon one.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[loserbob 11]

Again, this has nothing to do with what your talking about here. I was reading a post the other day where someone said"come on do you really believe we(reps) dont like Obama because he's black, this has always gone on between dems, reps? Now I remember there being disagreements but not to the extent there is now. I believe there is actual hatred for Obama and yes I do attribute it to his being black. The hatred is so much more intense, it actually makes me uncomfortable to think about. You reps can say what you want about how dems did the same to Bush. Well I voted for Bush the 2nd time and I believed whatever Hannity said "was the gospel". My point is you cant call me a Bush basher. I dont remember any hatred, was he ridiculled, yes, but not to the extent Obama is, and definitely not the hatred! So to say "you did it to us, where doing it back to you", Is not true and Bush was given every opportunity to do the right thing after 9-11 because that united everyone like no other time in history. So like I said there where disagreements with Bush policies(Iraq) but not hatred like today!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You're right, loserbob. Just look at the historic number of filibusters the republicans have done since Obama was elected. They won't even vote yes on their own amendments or on things they supported before Obama supported it too. Then they were against it. And Jim DeMint wanting the failure of healthcare to be Obama's waterloo. And rush cheering against America in wanting Obama to fail in getting the Olympics here. They hate the fact that a black man is in the white house. They hated Clinton, too, and went after him but it is so much more intense now. And no, the elected democrats did not act this way when bush was president. This kind of venom and pure hatred is historic.

But since the republicans are pushing out any leftover moderates in their party, their party is now one of extreme right wing ideology and hatred- so their behavior panders to this base.