Students sent home from school for wearing American flag t-shirts on May 5

[loserbob 11]

its sad you actually support this.... nothing like boycotting fellow LEGAL AMERICAN TAX PAYERS for law breaking illegals.

_________________________________________

Chris, I've said repeatedly on this thread that I don't support illegal immigration. I'll say it again, "I don't support illegal immigration." I'm against racism. These new laws are racist because they adversely affect Mexican-Americans. Public School Superintendent Horne's actions against ethnic studies is a case in point. The murder of a rancher by an illegal precipitating sweeping legislation that is anti-hispanic is another example.

I think what's happening is this: People are lumping Mexican-Americans and illegals into one group -- the bad "brown" people. That's racism.

I'll leave you with this example: When referring to the kids involved in the flag t-shirt incident another poster referred to the flag wearers as the "American" boys to differentiate between Americans and hispanics. Did he know that the hispanic kids weren't Americans? No!

Arizona has a history of racist politics. That's why they are being boycotted, not because everyone is for illegal immigration.

Ok, I think your referring to me,"American boys", You and others specifically said Hispanic boys also, If theyre citizens call them all Americans. I called the kids wearing American flag shirts Americans, you called the others Hispanics so whats the difference? People dont refer to me as "the Polish, Slovak, Italian, Irish guy, they refer to me as American. And is it possible Arizona "has a history" because theyre on the border and have always had to deal with "illegal Aliens"(god, I hate that term). Lets face it, we dont have African Americans, Chinese, Japanese living on our borders, if theyre here, theyre

"probably" here legally. Its the Mexicans who have fairly easy access to this country illegally, thats why theyre being "racially profiled". I cant say I blame the Mexicans for trying, Id do what I had to to support my family too.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Conservatives are far more intelligent than liberals. Liberals think that they have all the answers and they actually put themselves quite high on a pedestal. They think that the rest of the country would fall to pieces without thier intelligence and it is rather demeaning to others. You're confusing fear with morals. What you feel is something that conservatives "fear" is actually conservatives going along with their moral convictions. We don't "fear" Healthcare, we choose to have control of our choices where HC is concerned. We don't want our government getting any bigger than they already have gotten, which is too big for anybodies good. It's morally wrong to steal from people when they work hard to earn a living for the things they want in life. That's not 'fear', that's taking a moral stand on sin. Yes, sin. It is wrong to take from someone and give it to someone else without their consent. We don't "fear" gay people. We just believe it is morally wrong for gay people to commit the acts they do and expect others to find it acceptable. We don't want God's beautiful plan of marriage for a man and a woman to be distorted by their sinfulness. It's not fear, it's a moral stand. We don't "fear" women's choice. We just take a stand morally on the issue of infant murder. It's definitely NOT fear. It's ALL ABOUT MORALS. (which Liberals usually don't have much of).

(Segregation is a totally seperate issue from those others. There is no sin in the color of ones skin, therefore, it should NOT have been a policy in the first place )

Falsehoods About Health Care

Big myths about the current debate

August 14, 2009

.

Analysis

False: Government Will Decide What Care I Get (a.k.a. they won’t give grandma a hip replacement)

This untrue claim has its roots in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus bill), which called for the creation of a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The council is charged with supporting and coordinating research that the government has been funding for years into which treatments work best, and in some cases, are most cost-effective. Supporters of this type of research say it can provide valuable information to doctors, improving care and also lowering cost.

Betsy McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York (and now a professing Democrat), wrote in an opinion piece that the government would actually tell doctors what procedures they could and couldn’t perform. The claim took off from there, popping up in chain e-mails and Republican press conferences. It’s not true. The legislation specifically says that the council can’t issue requirements or guidelines on treatment or insurance benefits:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. … None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

As for the health care bills themselves, the House’s H.R. 3200 sets up a center to conduct and gather such research within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, an entity the CBO called “the most prominent federal agency supporting various types of research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments." Like the stimulus legislation, the bill states that: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.’’

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill (not yet released in its entirety) calls for a similar center that “will promote health outcomes research and evaluation that enables patients and providers to identify which therapies work best for most people and to effectively identify where more personalized approaches to care are necessary for others,” according to the summary of the bill.

This claim also stems from a fear that the U.S. will institute a system like that of the U.K., where the government provides and pays for health care. But none of the bills now being debated in Congress call for such a system, and the president has said he doesn’t want nationalized or single-payer health care, as we’ve said several times.

For more, see: "Doctor’s Orders?" Feb. 20

"Government-Run Health Care?" April 30

False: Private Insurance Will Be Illegal

In July, Investor’s Business Daily published an editorial in which it claimed that H.R. 3200 would make private insurance illegal. But IBD was mistaken. It was citing the part of the bill that ensures people with individually purchased coverage don’t have to give up that coverage unless they want to.

Under the House bill, people who want to buy new individual, nongroup coverage will have to purchase it through a new health insurance exchange. They can still buy private insurance – the exchange, in fact, would offer a range of private plans, in addition to a new federal health insurance option. However, those who were already buying their own insurance before the bill went into effect – about 14 million Americans – will have their plans grandfathered in. The part of the bill IBD cites doesn’t forbid insurers from issuing new plans. It says that new individual plans will not be considered grandfathered, and will have to be purchased through the exchange.

"Private Insurance Not Outlawed" Aug. 13

False: The House Bill Requires Suicide Counseling

This claim is nonsense. In an appearance on former Sen. Fred Thompson’s radio show, McCaughey also enthusiastically pushed the bogus claim that the House bill will require seniors to have regular counseling sessions on how to end their lives:

McCaughey, July 16:

The Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care … all to do what’s in society’s best interest … and cut your life short.

This is a misrepresentation. What the bill actually provides for is voluntary Medicare-funded end-of-life counseling. In other words, if seniors choose to make advance decisions about the type of care and treatments they wish to receive at the end of their lives, Medicare will pay for them to sit down with their doctor and discuss their preferences. There is no requirement to attend regular sessions, and there is absolutely no provision encouraging euthanasia.

Of course, seniors who talk to their doctors about end-of-life care might well choose to discuss what types of life-saving treatment they wish to refuse. That choice has been federally guaranteed for almost 20 years. Doctor-assisted suicide, on the other hand, is legal in only three states, making it even more unlikely to be a major part of the federal health plan.

Clarification, Aug. 18: We initially wrote that "euthanasia" was legal in three states. That term is often used to refer to "doctor-assisted suicide," but it has much broader implications than that. We’ve modified the sentence above accordingly.

"False Euthanasia Claims," July 29

False: Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed

The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors’ Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false, though that doesn’t keep it from being repeated ad infinitum.

The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the program’s payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings – or cuts, depending on one’s perspective – come from reducing current or future benefits for seniors.

The president has promised repeatedly that benefit levels won’t be reduced, reiterating the point recently in Portsmouth, N.H.:

Obama, Aug. 11

: Another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not.

Is he wrong? Not according to AARP, by far the nation’s largest organization representing the over-50 population. In a "Myths vs. Facts" rundown, AARP says:

AARP

: Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.

To be sure, Obama hasn’t always thought that Medicare "savings" could be accomplished without actual cuts in benefits. Last fall, his campaign ran two television ads accusing Sen. John McCain of wanting “a 22 percent cut in [Medicare] benefits.” The basis for the ads was a newspaper article in which a McCain aide said the Arizona Republican would cut Medicare costs. But the aide said nothing about cutting benefits, in fact quite the contrary. We called the claim "false" when Obama made it against McCain, and it’s still false now when Obama’s critics are making the same accusation against him.

False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered

One Republican congressman issued a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare," and we’ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They’re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246

— NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don’t qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don’t offer it.

"Misleading GOP Health Care Claims" July 23

All fear mongering falsehoods started by, believed by and spread by those anti-Obama haters on the right - has nothing to do with sin.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[loserbob 11]

What is worrisome to me is how the people in this country always have to have a group of people to target - this group is then blamed for a whole host of problems.

None of my 4 grandparents were born in this country. When they came over here there was much predujice against immigrants. "No Irish Need Apply" and catholics were discriminated against. They were blamed for many things. People didn't understand their "strange" customs.

The blacks were segregated in the south and kept from voting and getting jobs. Everything was fine as long as they were "kept in their place". Then the civil rights changed that and some have never gotten over that, blaming them for taking jobs from white men and the cause of all the problems.

Then the women's rights movement evolved and women were blamed for taking jobs from men and the cause of many problems.

Now we have Mexicans in our country who will someday represent the majority race in this country. So, of course, they are the target now. They are the cause of the problems and of course taking the jobs from the white people.

This is all so reminiscent of Nazi Germany where they had to have a target for all their problems and that was the Jews. Jews were portrayed as taking jobs from the Germans and the cause of their economic woes. So, it was easy for the Germans to look the other way when the Jews were rounded up to go to "labor" camps.

I think if they did a poll of white people in AZ about whether they would support rounding up all Mexicans and putting them in detention camps and sorting out their legal status later, well I think the majority would support that.

Again the problem isnt Mexicans being here legally, its the illegals who come here and "steal jobs", the scumbag employers know they can pay them alot less than what an American citizen would command and not have to pay taxes on these people, thats the problem.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Fearmongering by saying that the healthcare bill would provide federal tax dollars for abortions:

The Abortion Issue

April 1, 2010

Q: What are the facts regarding the new health insurance law’s federal funding for abortion, or lack of it?

A: The law says individuals who get federal subsidy dollars must use their private money to pay for coverage of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Claims that the new law will lead to a large increase in the number of abortions lack support.

Strictly speaking, the new law does not provide direct federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother — the same rules that now apply to Medicaid coverage for low-income persons and to the insurance available to federal workers and military families. In fact, the new law states specifically that federal funds are not to be used for coverage of any other kinds of abortions, and that only premium dollars paid by individuals out of their own pockets may be used to pay for coverage of other kinds of abortions.

[loserbob 11]

I have posted elsewhere opinions by scholars and constitutional experts about this law. It will be decided in the courts. It apprears that most experts think it's unconstitutional but I'm sure there are those who think it is:

Law Profs On Arizona Immigration Bill: It’s Unconstitutional

By Amir Efrati

By now you may have heard about a controversial immigration law passed in Arizona that makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.

The law grants police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal. The measure was criticized Friday by President Barack Obama, who asked the Justice Department to research the law.

It sounded to the Law Blog like we were heading toward a big federalism showdown. So we turned to Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine Law to pregame it for us. Their response: the law is DOA.

The Arizona law appears to be “facially unconstitutional,” Manheim said. “States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.”

States have long attempted to regulate immigration and in some instances the federal government successfully challenged state laws in court, including in the 1800s, Manheim said.

But federal governments often stay out of the fight. In 1994, for example, California voters passed a law designed to deny social services to undocumented aliens. The law was challenged by private litigants and struck down by a federal court.

Manheim said the Obama Administration, which is in the midst of trying to pass a federal immigration reform law, would likely rely on private litigants to challenge the controversial Arizona law. Challenging the law directly “might create a political conflict” for the administration, he said.

If private litigants sue Arizona over the new law, the Justice Department also could file a so-called friend-of-the-court brief in support of the challenge, he said.

And if everyone was supposed to post in black, why do you suppose they offer color choices? Hmmm. I am pro-choice, after all. You betcha. :redface:

Ya, 2 California law professors, I would have never guessed their answers!

[loserbob 11]

"Whats this have to do with anything? Why does the race card get pulled out so easily these days? Maybe these kids were just fed up with society these days being so pc and putting down our own country to satisfy other nationalities?"

Your nationality is the nation you're a citizen of. Are you referring to Mexican nationals? The race card? From patriotic Americans we often hear, "We want our country back." Back from whom?

PC is simply not referring to people in an offensive biased way. You think kids are fed up with not referring to people in an offensive biased way? PC is a natural part of Christianity for those of you that are Christians and believe we are a Christian nation. Jesus said "Love thy neighbor as theyself." It simply means respecting others and regarding their needs and desires as highly as we regard our own.

Ya and we're all sinners also! A part of Christianity is following laws, illegals arent following laws, so that doesnt make me a sinner because Im judging them for being here illegally, its my "constitutional right" to uphold the law.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Ya, 2 California law professors, I would have never guessed their answers!

I was trying to be fair and say that there are different opinions about the constitutionality of this law and the courts will decide. I didn't expect sarcasm from you, but I guess I was wrong.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Conservatives are far more intelligent than liberals. Liberals think that they have all the answers and they actually put themselves quite high on a pedestal. They think that the rest of the country would fall to pieces without thier intelligence and it is rather demeaning to others. You're confusing fear with morals. What you feel is something that conservatives "fear" is actually conservatives going along with their moral convictions. We don't "fear" Healthcare, we choose to have control of our choices where HC is concerned. We don't want our government getting any bigger than they already have gotten, which is too big for anybodies good. It's morally wrong to steal from people when they work hard to earn a living for the things they want in life. That's not 'fear', that's taking a moral stand on sin. Yes, sin. It is wrong to take from someone and give it to someone else without their consent. We don't "fear" gay people. We just believe it is morally wrong for gay people to commit the acts they do and expect others to find it acceptable. We don't want God's beautiful plan of marriage for a man and a woman to be distorted by their sinfulness. It's not fear, it's a moral stand. We don't "fear" women's choice. We just take a stand morally on the issue of infant murder. It's definitely NOT fear. It's ALL ABOUT MORALS. (which Liberals usually don't have much of).

(Segregation is a totally seperate issue from those others. There is no sin in the color of ones skin, therefore, it should NOT have been a policy in the first place )

You're also confusing your religious propaganda with fear mongering. Sometimes they overlap, but what I am referring to is the little old lady who thinks she'll be put in front of a death panel (courtesy of palin lies) or have her medicare taken away.

Or the person who thinks their taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions.

Or the person who thinks they will no longer be able to see their own doctor, the government will tell them who they can see (right now it's the insurance companies who tell them).

There is plenty of fear mongering going on from the right. Remember the mushroom cloud as a reason to invade Iraq? Or if bush wasn't reelected in 2004 we would be attacked again (courtesy of cheney - daughter liz has now taken up the torch for daddy).

The terror level was elevated right before the 2004 elections. Fear mongering.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[loserbob 11]

If law enforcement has probable cause and a warrant who is going to stop them from going into a mosque, synagogue, or church? And since when don't they stop a 30 something Muslim looking man before he boards an airplane? I was under the impression all passengers passed through checkpoints.

I don't have a problem with people being checked at airports. I haven't seen anyone in the media say they have a problem about this now.

But do you see the slippery slope that the law in Arizona has caused? Now, in addition to this law about stopping people and asking for proof of citizenship, there is a law being considered in the state to ban ethnic studies in the schools. No more african-american studies, no more latino studies, no more islamic studies. Don't you think it benefits all of us to learn about the other cultures who come here as well as for them to learn about our history? When we learn about each other doesn't that promote harmony for living amongst each other? First the textbooks in Texas, now this.

The problem isnt whether we have probable cause, its whether a judge will issue warrants stating probable cause. And I dont know how it works now but shortly after 9-11 they where searching (on average)every 4th person to speed up the lines and there was outrage over racial profiling, muslims/Arab looking people where outraged for being profiled. There where stories about mothers with babies and old women being profiled while passing over people who more appropriately fit the description of a possible terrorist.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Conservatives are far more intelligent than liberals.

Oh, yeah? The more education (except at Bob Jones College) one has, the more liberal their views are likely to be.

[loserbob 11]

Maybe our resident fact checker should do a little on her own claims.

AZ HB 2281

I'm reading through this and having a hard time finding where it says they can no longer teach about other cultures? Maybe you can highlight with your favorite red color the part that says no teaching of other cultures in the bill because I sure as heck can't find it. Or maybe your listening to too many liberal news organizations and just spitting out their talking points without doing a little fact checking.:redface:

Ariscus99, Im not being funny here but I started posting here by responding to Patty Green and sine then she disappeared and your here. I was joking about thinking you where the same person(on the other site, healthcare) but now Im wondering what the hell is going on here!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Conservatives are far more intelligent than liberals.

The Pennsylvania Progressive

The Stupidity of the Tea Partiers

by: John Morgan

Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 08:32:15 AM EDT

I've been wondering why Canadians are so much smarter than Americans. Our neighbors north of the border share the same heritage with us: settled by Western Europeans, tied to the British and French nations, pioneers who crossed a dangerous ocean in search of opportunity. Our nation's paths diverged quickly; Canada never adopted slavery as its climate was unfit for cotton, the crop which seemed to corrupt American morals, and it remained part of the British Empire far longer. Canadians have universal health care and love it, they are a far more peaceful people than Americans, never having started a war of empire or imperialism and didn't engage in the genocide of natives as happened in the lower 48.

There are great similarities and great differences between the U.S. and Canada but the level of knowledge and intelligence is what strikes me most. Canadians know their facts, Americans do not. It isn't necessarily that Americans are stupid but that they choose not to learn basic things. Things such as initiating wars under false pretenses for imperialistic reasons is bad, that genocide is bad, that dropping atomic bombs on people is bad, that lying about reality is bad and on and on. We can blame the ignorance and misinformation on Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Faux News and others but the fact is Americans choose to get their misinformation from these sources rather than reality based programming. That makes them stupid in my book. The internet brings all sorts of information to our fingertips but many choose not to access reliable sources. Canadians do.

We witnessed much of this ignorance last year during the health care debacle and will observe it once again on Wall Street reform. The Tea baggers were out in force last week protesting taxes and government. I say if you don't like our form of government you are free to relocate to Somalia. Go live where there is no government. While carrying signs protesting President Obama and his taxes few of these folks accepted the actual fact that he cut taxes for 95% of working Americans. With the nation, and world, on the brink of an economic catastrophe which could have made the Great Depression seem like a summer picnic he pulled us back from the brink of a deep abyss and turned things around. They give him no credit for that but, instead blame him for massive budget deficits. The reality is that those deficits are from failed right wing policies they support. Why are Americans so stupid?

Here's a graph which makes it so simple even a Tea bagger can comprehend it:

As you can see most of the deficit has resulted from a failed economy. Add in the unpaid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the unpaid for Bush tax cuts and Bush's TARP and Fannie and Freddie bailouts and most of our deficit is the fault of Republicans. Tea baggers blame Barack Obama however.

Democrats don't support massive tax cuts for the richest 1%, that's a right wing philosophy, as are imperialistic wars based on lies to the people and policies of deregulation big business. It was Republicans like George Bush (both), Dick Cheney, Phil Gramm, Mitch McConnell, Bill Frist, Dick Armey and so on who chose to allow Wall Street to manufacture fraud on such a massive scale it collapsed the global economy. Unfortunately our friends in Canada and everywhere else suffered along with Americans who lost $7 trillion in personal wealth, seven millions homes and eight million jobs. These nitwit Americans blame Democrats however.

Now I'll concede there are lots of corporate Democrats who remain part of the problem. The Wall Street tycoons who thought up these toxic mortgage securities then peddled them to new homeowners using fraudulent tactics then bet against them failing (as they knew they must) are the principle criminals in what happened. Simply going after Goldman Sachs won't assuage the guilt of the millions of traders, managers and sales agents who perpetrated this massive fraud. Though bankers created 80% of the fraud many greedy Americans also saw the chance to strike it rich and attempted to cash in by flipping houses, taking interest only mortgages and bought homes they knew they couldn't afford.

How many of us drove past those developments of McMansions and wondered how people were affording them? I bet most of us did. They couldn't and today they stand vacant, cancers on the economic health of the country. Our financial system is as broken as our health care system and if what we just witnessed in the attempt to reform that is any indication stupid Americans will, once again, allow themselves to be brainwashed by the media into thinking white is black, black is white and up is down. The corporate media didn't want real health care reform and it doesn't want economic reform. They will continue to finance groups such as the Tea Party and convince these stupid, gullible souls into acting against their own interests. I'm sorry but these idiots got exactly what they deserved with the financial, economic meltdown because they allowed the corporate media to brainwash them into thinking gay marriage would destroy this country. Wall Street and the Republican Party for which they voted did. When one votes repeatedly against one's own economic interests don't then turn around and blame me. I told you so. The supreme irony is that these same forces are financing the Tea Party. Now people criticize me for calling Tea baggers stupid. The evidence is overwhelming, I see it every time I see them. The most aggravating part of it is that these people choose to be stupid, choose to access bad sources, choose to listen to Rush and watch Faux News, choose to be stupid. Canadians don't and I wonder why. Better schools?

[loserbob 11]

Ya, 2 California law professors, I would have never guessed their answers!

I didnt read the full post, Im trying to hurry, my wife is getting on me about being here so long. Im trying to read real quick so I can respond and am probably missing alot of info, my apologies. Sarcasm is probably the easiest way for me to respond to anything. I actually put something about liberals in one of my responses to you and erased it because on other posts I lean towards Dem point of view and didnt want to sound hypocritical

Again, to all of you, have a great night.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Conservatives are far more intelligent than liberals.

Tea Party's Own Supporters Show Its Shallow Stupidity

Aaron Lowe .

If you haven't heard of the Tea Party by now, you have been living brain dead. A lot has been written about the Tea Party, its members, and its detractors. However, no one has really challenged the Tea Party yet at the same time, no ones what it is really capable of.

In an article on the Illinois Tea Party, one man named David Hale said he was hoping the Tea Party "stays raw." Is raw an acronym for ridiculous, asinine, and wacky? It must be because those are the only things that emanate from the Tea Party. These so-called patriots often fail to understand the basic tenants of the arguments they claim to rail against.

The Tea Party claims to support smaller government, but then purports to say that President Obama is a socialist and near communist. If these morons, yes morons, understood either term, they would know that communism is the purest form of socialism, one without need for a government. Just what the tea drinkers would like, right?

The Tea Party's communist America would be an economic system like man has never seen before: man trading with man for the good man needs to survive and thrive. Would such a system be free of government regulation and intervention? Yes, because the evil government would cease to exist.

It pains me to hear people rail against government regulated and mandate healthcare while taking Medicare, Medicaid, and VA care. If government healthcare is so bad, then why do they have their hands deep in the slop? Then again, it is not really healthcare, it is health insurance.

The Tea Party has a good basic platform: smaller government, less taxes, and less government spending. However, the Tea Party fails to realize how much good the government has done. Without the government in America, there would be no universal access to electricity, heat, and Water. Now, I am not going to say that we would not have these things in America today, but we certainly would not be where we are today. Has anyone ever heard of the TVA? Maybe the Tea Party people should check it out.

I also wonder if the Tea Party knows who pays the military, police officers, firefighters, and the trash collectors. These are all essential services to the fabric of life. I am sure that the Tea Party people would not want all of the parks to disappear and the public schools to disappear. I wonder how many Tea Party people attended public schools? I hope they got a good education, and if they did not go to public schools I hope the same.

Could the government do without many of its programs? Sure. However, we have to realize that government serves a purpose. If you believe that government is based on the consent of the governed, then you believe that government is formed on the basis of a social contract between men. If we are forming or living in a society, we have to sacrifice some individual license for the better good of all. In these times, we the question should not be how much freedom are we losing, but how much we are willing to give up to see our brothers and sisters and ourselves lifted up to create a better United States.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Conservatives are far more intelligent than liberals.

FAR MORE intelligent? Prove it.