Too bad Foster Friess's mother didn't use the aspirin method of birth control.

You got that right, Denny. I can think of a few.....like Barbara Bush.

@ron, what cave have you been a hermit in for the last decade or so? You ask:

how is "step away from the crack pipe" a "racist" remark?

The fact that the reference was to "crack" rather than "powder," in conjunction with the fact that a majority of the people busted for using crack happen to have black skin, whereas the majority of people busted for powder have white skin is where the racist connection comes from. Although the distinction was caused by how much cash the arrested person had, not the skin color, it became quite controversial that those people convicted of crack possession, albeit a smaller quantity of cocaine than those convicted or powder possession had, the sentence for possessing smaller quantities crack cocaine ended up being significantly longer than for possessing larger quantities of cocaine in powder form.

While Rep. Waters' quip about Reps Boehner & Cantor being demons was over the top, the person who accused Waters of smoking crack could have gotten the point across, without the racist overtones, by merely accusing Waters of being on drugs.

[In case you (or anyone else) asks, I'm not bent out of shape about this because I'm black-skinned. I happen to be predominantly Caucasian (along with Native American Indian). However, I strongly believe in Socio-Economic Justice. And it was due to a combination of an unfair (black) market and unjust laws that led to there being anything racist about "step away from the crack pipe."

Do fish know they're wet?

Republicans are so deep into all that racist stuff they don't know anything else. For them everything is fair game, they just don't know any better!

Chuck and OR.....you rock. They are not concerned with womens rights, or bigots, they just want to throw out their distraction. Mr. rasberry looks like a fellow that use to ride his bike through the vine? hdrk

TM my thought to a re reg that so far has escaped notice by rarely posting until lately.

OR.

do fish know they're wet?

good one!

i agree, this is so much a part of who they are, sometimes they don't realize how horrible they sound.

Of course you didn't realize that Congress Waters is a black lady.

Make that 2 cars and I'll agree. Three would be too many for them to handle.

Not if Bush or Cheney are driving, both tend to love the DUI thing!

Republicans are the most racist people I know, and they are not afraid to spread that hate across this country hoping that they can get more ignorant people on their side. The part that is really side they are always talking about God, and yet spew hatred as much as they can. I don't think most people in this day in age will be voting for that mess! They can keep that right where it needs to be, in the garbage with them!

Quote I read a while back:" Not all republicans are racist, but all racist are republicans". I think it fits very well.

Believing that smoking crack is tied to a race is racist. Democrats get a free pass on their racists remarks so much they can't even see it.

Ditto!

I'm Afro American,I took no offense. People are too thin skin. I saw Eds show for the first time at my moms home. She a big fan. I saw nothing racial and if he got busted for drugs what does the color of his skin have to do with it. Criminals come in all colors.

Well- they are at least as racist as Democrats. And about asa good as Democrats as spreading hate and being divisive.

Cosmic, Interesting you used the word, "Enlightened". Do mean a person that approaches an issue from a position of logic, reason, and science vice one that believes in God and the teachings of the Church?

Are you talking about those great enlightened intellectuals that brought us Eugenics as practiced by Nazi Germany? Science, reason, and logic absent of the moral teachings of God, any God, pick one, leads to an immoral society.

These attacks on individuals because of their religious belief, is not by the Enlightened, it is by the intolerant. Contraception exists, it is available, and in many cases it is free. To the best of my knowledge there isn't any one in the political arena attempting to abolish contraception. There are those however that believe in the First Amendment and that the government forcing a religious organization to contradict its core values is unconstitutional.

Surly an enlightened person can see this and understand there is a much more logical approach that would satisfy the objectives of both groups. I know you Enlightened folks believe that God is a superstition and believers are stupid ignorant fools. I find it funny that the Enlightened are so concerned about to poor, disabled, and the elderly when the same intellectuals came up with a very logical, reasonable, and scientific conclusion that the overall population would be much better off without them and that killing the deformed, disabled, elderly, and poor is a reasonable response to a social problem.

As an Enlightened person do you see Eugenics at work today in our society? Does the legal abortion of millions of minority children not achieve the same goal? Are the Enlighten, absent of moral values, manipulating the size and race of the population through such policies? Is the purpose of the current debate to eliminate the First Amendment all together, paving the way for the implementation of even more horrendous acts for the betterment of humanity?

Are you talking about those great enlightened intellectuals that brought us Eugenics as practiced by Nazi Germany? Science, reason, and logic absent of the moral teachings of God, any God, pick one, leads to an immoral society.

This "immorality" is purely a matter of opinion having said that we must remember religious zealots in control of politics and government tends to slow scientific progress and bring about similar instances of mass slaughter.....both ideas have a needed purpose and can provide a balance to society going to the extreme should always be held in contempt

These attacks on individuals because of their religious belief, is not by the Enlightened, it is by the intolerant.

Yeah that's why the GOP should stop picking on Muslims as anti-american.

Contraception exists, it is available, and in many cases it is free.

Not really for women no.....condoms don't do them much good.....it is rarely free for many if not most. So in cases where it is not free, most cases, it is a considerable cost.

. To the best of my knowledge there isn't any one in the political arena attempting to abolish contraception.

Many attempting to stop abortion try to pass these fertilization personhood amendments which define human life as a sperm and egg meeting thus hormonal birth control or an IUD could be considered a murder weapon because they prevent implantation thus destroying the cell or as they would have it the person...so those people whether they know it or not want to outlaw certain forms of contraception

There are those however that believe in the First Amendment and that the government forcing a religious organization to contradict its core values is unconstitutional.

If the Catholic church didn't believe in child labor laws should the businesses they own not have to follow them? How does it violate the church's conscience considering that they already provide contraception in the health plans at their businesses and have done so since before they were legally required to? Why should the church's businesses be excluded from having to abide by labor law that all other businesses must follow.

Fact is the church already provides contraception and has done so since before they legally had to so the amish bus driver angle is just laughable.....since we've seen the amish driver drive his own car so...that falls on its face. So guess the church must have been violating its own conscience for all those years. The church can talk to me about conscience when its conscience is clean ie when the clergy stops protecting pedophiles.....willingly protecting pedophiles no labor law forced them to give out millions of their faithful flock's money to hide child molesters guess that didn't go against their conscience after we didn't hear this much complaining.

Furthermore the law has already seen considerable precident stating that when the church is engaging in secular activity that they should have no expectations concerning their dogma. Should a woman who works for a super far right fundamentalist muslim be forced to wear a burkkah because that's the employer's own religious views? NO. This is no different. This is about labor not the first amendment, deal with it.

As an Enlightened person do you see Eugenics at work today in our society?

no.

Does the legal abortion of millions of minority children not achieve the same goal?

No because it has nothing to do with controlling the population for it to have a eugenics angle it would have to be the intentional act with the goal of manipulating the genetics of society so unless their's some bilderburg freemasonary element to this.....this too is innaccurate to the point of being laughable. Not to mention that many white people have abortions and that american society is becoming less caucassian....so maybe if the "minority" population in america and on earth for that matter didn't outnumber white caucassians than perhaps this might have some legitimate side to it....too bad it doesn't

Are the Enlighten, absent of moral values, manipulating the size and race of the population through such policies?

Once again with the nation's "minority" population being the actual majority in the country and always being the majority of the human race this falls flat on its face. Perhaps if you switched "minority" with caucassian this might have some roots in reality........if there were some secret freemason islamic socialist nazi or who ever you want to make out as the boogie man(or as you probably call him, George Soros) that was trying to control the population of those cursed colored folks then they totally failed at that one

Is the purpose of the current debate to eliminate the First Amendment all together, paving the way for the implementation of even more horrendous acts for the betterment of humanity?

only in your wildest glenn beck conspiracy theory fantasies since after all this is a labor issue not a first amendment one considering the church willingly providing contraception at the secular businesses before they ever were legally required to. This in conjunction with the fact that to prove that this inhabits one's practice of religion damages must be shown and in this case there are none....again the willingly providing contraception.......

Ah CC thats way to logic for our tea bagging republican trolls to understand. Try it in tea bagging language, grunt grunt snort snort belch good, snort snort grunt grunt belch bad. They might get it then.

Cynical

This "immorality" is purely a matter of opinion

I could see why an Enlightened individual would suggest "Immorality" is a matter of opinion. The reasoning applied to Eugenics removes human emotion, conscious, and morality form the equation. The termination of human life, "the elderly, deformed, disabled, etc..." for the betterment of humanity is to destroy humanity as absent of compassion and a morals we become something less than human.

we must remember religious zealots in control of politics and government tends to slow scientific progress and bring about similar instances of mass slaughter

I agree. Although recent historical examples of religious zealots in control of politics and government is difficult to find, especial when mass slaughter is involved. Now there are several examples over the past 50 years where governments void of religion have participated in mass murder. Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Stalin are great examples of what people absent of the moral values of religion can achieve. Millions upon millions murdered to achieve some ones idea of a better society. I do know of currently active governments controlled by religious fundamentalists intent on converting the world, but it would probably be more conducive to the conversation not to bring them up.

Many attempting to stop abortion try to pass these fertilization personhood amendments which define human life as a sperm and egg meeting thus hormonal birth control or an IUD could be considered a murder weapon because they prevent implantation thus destroying the cell or as they would have it the person...so those people whether they know it or not want to outlaw certain forms of contraception

There is a significant difference between prohibiting a specific type of contraception and abolishing contraception all together. I find it rather funny, that the Enlightened believe a scientific theory concerning the origin of life on earth yet they refuse to accept the fact that a fertilized human egg is alive or a life.

Yeah that's why the GOP should stop picking on Muslims as anti-American

I am not sure who in the GOP you are referring to, but would ask if you believe Islam is compatible with our way of life and the US Constitution? I myself believe it is not. Freedom of speech seems to big a major problem within the community. Do you recall the Danish Muslim cartoons and the Muslim response? 100s killed, bombings and burning of Danish Embassies in Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Yet another example of Muslim disregard for free speech was the response to the Koran burning in Florida. Do you remember the seven United Nations staff workers murdered in Afghanistan in reaction to the burning? The bottom line, the religion itself is simply not compatible with Free Speech and as such the Constitution.

Not really for women no.....condoms don't do them much good.....it is rarely free for many if not most. So in cases where it is not free, most cases, it is a considerable cost

The Birth Control Pill is the most commonly used form of birth control in the United States. The Pill costs $20.00 to $50.00 a month. And yes the Pill is available at no cost to those with the inability to pay. Being that contraception is elective, that is birth is not an disease, why should the cost be covered by an employer or the tax payer?

Sorry I have to get back to you on the rest of the post. Have a great day.

Try it in tea bagging language, grunt grunt snort snort belch good, snort snort grunt grunt belch bad. They might get it then.

perhaps I should have.....

I could see why an Enlightened individual would suggest "Immorality" is a matter of opinion.

because that's a fact, and don't waste a moment of your time applying label you foolishly believe describe me

The termination of human life, "the elderly, deformed, disabled, etc..." for the betterment of humanity is to destroy humanity as absent of compassion and a morals we become something less than human.

And how do we know this is so factually wrong when no one who has gone to the answer has every returned to tell us. But I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't have the slightest understanding of what I meant by that so I'll drop the metaphysical jargon. Those who would advocate for such a solution would disagree so since they are operating on a completely different system of values in their minds they are not wrong and there is no definate evidence to prove anyone's own system is correct. To victor goes the spoils and that includes history and society. People get themselves into to trouble when they believe they are acting on behalf of the divine...often....when you can do no wrong anything is acceptable. That applies to all peoples.

Although recent historical examples of religious zealots in control of politics and government is difficult to find, especial when mass slaughter is involved.

I wasn't reffering to modern times since events like the Inquisiton are bloody enough to stain all the pages of history but this is none the less false. Go at Uganda or witch hunts in Africa, islamic and christian terrorist armies running across the continent, Saudi Arabia, Iran......all religious zealots, all terrible bloodshed.

Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Stalin are great examples of what people absent of the moral values of religion can achieve.

I laugh at that thought since religion is one of the most common justifications for murder. People will and have used any thing they want to try to justify their actions faith makes no difference, unforntunately.

Millions upon millions murdered to achieve some ones idea of a better society. I do know of currently active governments controlled by religious fundamentalists intent on converting the world, but it would probably be more conducive to the conversation not to bring them up.

Iran.....glad you thought that through.

There is a significant difference between prohibiting a specific type of contraception and abolishing contraception all together.

Not when most women use hormonal birth control aka the most common method. That's why every single state that has put it on the ballot has seen such iniatives rejected by vast margins

I am not sure who in the GOP you are referring to, but would ask if you believe Islam is compatible with our way of life and the US Constitution? I myself believe it is not.

Guess Islam isn't a religion then, or that muslims haven't been part of the nation since well.....forever....seems like the nation hasn't been destroyed yet that might point to persecuting muslims not being necessary. I'm entertained that you would profane our constitution by implying that any faith is to held as unwelcome in america.....sadly not surprised. Clearly you also fail to recall all the numerous times xtianity has been used to justify murder.....you insulf islam for being "violent" yet you'd jump in front of a bullet for the catholic church. Clearly you have a reality optional world view by your logic we should hold all christians accountable for things like the crusades, inquisition, the kill the gays movements in africa, those shootings in Norway, the murders of abortion doctors.....clearly violence amongst this community as well(what a joke).......now you see what I mean ludicrous to hold millions responsible for the actions of the few. Perhaps in time you will learn that individuals alone are responsible for their individual actions and any excuse they give be it religion or what have you is just that an excuse.

Luckily the constitution defends your fictional view of it.

The Birth Control Pill is the most commonly used form of birth control in the United States. The Pill costs $20.00 to $50.00 a month. And yes the Pill is available at no cost to those with the inability to pay. Being that contraception is elective, that is birth is not an disease, why should the cost be covered by an employer or the tax payer?

let's introduce reality into the equation why should a health care plan that pays for perscription drugs exclude this prescription drug? And no it does not cost between 20-50 everywhere nor is it available at no cost everywhere since if that were the case why would women even want it to be on their healthcare plans if they were always getting it for free?

Furthermore it is not always elective either this is but another myth you're floating, in reality it is also one of the most common methods used to help control or moderate a women's menstrual cycle.....

Returning to my original question should a woman have to wear a burkkah to go along with the fundamentalists far right views of a muslim employer if she is employed at a secular business?

Should women be singled out for having ovaries? Is a uterus a pre-existing condition? Last I checked being born a woman wasn't a choice......if someone was born diabetic should they be singled out by an insurance company and be forced to fend for themselves on the insurance market....

For what logical reason should an employer who is willing to pay for perscription drug costs not pay for birth control? And don't my time with that it goes against their conscience chant, if they own a secular business or are involved in innately secualr activity as business tends to be they legally and fittingly have no expectation of their personal dogma being considered........I mean after all doesn't the person have a right to not have their employers values having to be forced on them to work?

If the catholic church didn't believe in child labor laws should they or should they not have to follow them?

double post

Moral behaviour is behaviour modified by the supernatural belief in some God, either motivated for pleasing Him in exchange for the God's favour, or fear of punishment by the God's wrath. It is appealing to the Id, or Child, in most people.

Legal behaviour is behaviour modified by adherance to laws, either motivated by manipulation of laws for the enhancement of one's position, or fear of getting caught and punished by authority. It appeals to the Ego, or Parent, in most people.

Ethical behaviour is behaviour modified by recognition of one's rights and responsibilities, including the responsibility of recognizing and respecting those rights in others. It accepts that the enforcement of control of others, either through the fear of God or the threat of laws, is detrimental and cruel to the rights of others and demeaning to ourselves. It appeals to the SuperEgo, or Adult, in most of us, although in some, this has been depressed through ignoring or deliberate suppression, though it is always present in our subconcious mind.

Though sometimes the Child in me expresses itself, I try to control it through discipline, not fear. I have never desired to be a Parent, although I obey laws, however unjustified, to retain the right of freedom. I always try to recognize the rights of others, as I hope to have my rights recognized in return.

I was a Child, but I grew up. I have never wanted to be a Parent, either physically or spiritually. I am an Adult, and I accept the responsibilty for the consequences of my actions. I just want to be treated like one.

A 32 year old woman decides to stop taking medication to prevent cysts and it's someone else's fault. You can't get any more liberal than that!!! Maybe we should raise taxes to pay for a nanny to watch over her 24 hours a day.

And you can't be more misinformed then a tea bagging republican clone.

apparently having a uterus IS a pre-existing condition, according to the catholic church and the repubs in washington.

it has always been this way. in biblical times women were treated like cattle, with men having many wives for the purposes of "serving" their "master", not unlike slaves.

many bagger or repub bloggers on this site, have said, in regard to gays, that "special interest groups" should be denied civil rights, because that pushes their "special interest agenda".

i guess a woman's right to birth control is another "special interest group" that should not be "awarded" the most basic of rights, the right to have control over their own bodies, yet insurance companies cover the use of viagra/cialis for men to enhance their sexual pleasure, but the repubs in washington want to deny women the same pleasure, sex without fear of getting pregnant.

many women are controlled and abused by their husbands, and forced to have sex. in some cases the use of birth control should be a very private and personal decision made by the woman without telling her husband, if she is not afraid to do so, and if she knows she can keep it a secret. i believe that in marriage, whether or not to use birth control is a decision that should be shared, but when a husband is abusive and controlling, the woman has to take some control for herself.

Cynical

Those who would advocate for such a solution would disagree so since they are operating on a completely different system of values in their minds they are not wrong and there is no definate evidence to prove anyone's own system is correct.
Interesting position, nothing is wrong unless an individual believes it to be wrong. I would argue Evil is Evil, regardless of the number of people that believe Evil is Good. Slavery is a good example; it has existed in nearly every society throughout history. Persia, Greece, Rome, Europe, America, even the America Indians practiced slavery. The fact that the practice was widely accepted doesn’t change the fact that it was Evil.

People get themselves into to trouble when they believe they are acting on behalf of the divine...often....when you can do no wrong anything is acceptable. That applies to all peoples.

And don’t people also get themselves in trouble when inspired by things other than religion? Ideological political movements of the past 100 years have resulted in more death than 2000 years of Christianity. In fact the number of deaths associated to religious fanatics during the Inquisitions and Crusades pale in comparison to the deaths brought about by Hitler, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin. And for the most part these Ideological movements were void of religion. You may be right about the spoils of war and who writes history, but the murder of 70 million people in Mao’s China is Evil and it remains Evil, no matter who is writing the history.

I wasn't reffering to modern times since events like the Inquisiton are bloody enough to stain all the pages of history but this is none the less false. Go at Uganda or witch hunts in Africa, islamic and christian terrorist armies running across the continent, Saudi Arabia, Iran......all religious zealots, all terrible bloodshed.

I like the “Bloody enough to stain the pages of history” and wonder if you have come to the same conclusion with Socialism? You readily condemn religion as a driving force behind these evil acts, do you do the same for Socialism an ideological movement responsible for millions upon millions of more death than all the religions of the world throughout time? You can hang a Christian Banner on an Army, but that doesn’t make it Christian. Christianity has been abused and twisted for political and economic objectives in the past and no doubt it will be in the future. I know of nowhere in the teachings of Christ that promotes slaughter. I cannot speak to the teachings of Islam, but I have heard the word “Jihad”.

I laugh at that thought since religion is one of the most common justifications for murder. People will and have used any thing they want to try to justify their actions faith makes no difference, unforntunately.

I know locally robbery, infidelity, drugs, and money are common justifications for murder. Of course there have been a few incidents of Islamic Honor Killings reported and the abortion doctor some would say were motivated by religion. I imagine you are back to the Inquisition and the Crusades with this comment. Once again I would argue that murder to further a political ideology is far more
common than those committed in the name of God. Again I ask if you have a greater level or any contempt for Socialism as you seem to have for religion. Mao murdered 70 million, Lenin 6 million, Stalin 60 million, Pol Pot 2 million, all
for a political ideology void of the moral teachings of a religion. Which is a more common motivation for murder, Christianity or Socialism?

Guess Islam isn't a religion then, or that muslims haven't been part of the nation since well.....forever....seems like the nation hasn't been destroyed yet that might point to persecuting muslims not being necessary. I'm entertained that you would profane our constitution by implying that any faith is to held as unwelcome in america.....sadly not surprised. Clearly you also fail to recall all the numerous times xtianity has been used to justify murder.....you insulf islam for being "violent" yet you'd jump in front of a bullet for the catholic church. Clearly you have a reality optional world view by your logic we should hold all christians accountable for things like the crusades, inquisition, the kill the gays movements in africa, those shootings in Norway, the murders of abortion doctors.....clearly violence amongst this community as well(what a joke).......now you see what I mean ludicrous to hold millions responsible for the actions of the few. Perhaps in
time you will learn that individuals alone are responsible for their individual
actions and any excuse they give be it religion or what have you is just that
an excuse.

I never said Islam wasn’t a religion nor did I saw it wasn’t or for that matter shouldn’t be protected under the First Amendment. What I said
is Islam was incompatible with the Constitution. As for holding millions responsible for the actions of a few, there is a significant difference between a man shooting an abortion doctor and the residents of an entire town killing 7 UN workers. There are also significant differences in the teachings of Christ and those of Mohamed.

Returning to my original question should a woman have to wear a burkkah to go along with the fundamentalists far right views of a muslim employer if she is employed at a secular business?

An employer should be free to establish a dress code for employees. An perspective employee should be aware of the stipulations of employment prior to accepting a position. That said, if an employer wants to require employees to wear, say orange spandex shorts and a white tank top, she should be free to do so.

For what logical reason should an employer who is willing to pay for prescription drug costs not pay for birth control?

If an employer is freely providing health care insurance to employees with such a stipulation I would say go ask that employer what his reasoning was. The debate is not about employers willing to provide health insurance; it is about a government mandate to do so.

And don't my time with that it goes against their conscience chant, if they own a secular business or are involved in innately secualr activity as business tends to be they legally and fittingly have no expectation of their personal dogma being considered........

It is difficult for me to see a Religion Hospital as being secular when the motivation behind the Church’s involvement with the hospital is based in the core values of the religion. I would understand your argument if the church owned a strip club.

I mean after all doesn't the person have a right to not have their employers values having to be forced on them to work?

A person has the ight to work were they want just as an employer has the right to establish standards within the work place. If an employee doesn’t like their employer for whatever reason they are free to find employment elsewhere.

If the catholic church didn't believe in child labor laws should they or should they not have to follow them?

The bible and other writings are the foundation of Catholic Doctrine. Absent of Christ’s teachings concerning child labor it would difficult to justify. If
Christ taught us that a child’s labor was essential there should indeed be an
exception to laws prohibiting the practice.

2ez,

if birth control could be gotten for free, insurance companies would NEVER cover it. this is a republican talking point, that birth control pills can be gotten for free in every situation. that is simply not true. Planned Parenthood provides birth control for free, or for a very low cost, but Planned Parenthood does not exist in every area of the United States. and to get birth control for free, poor women have to jump through hoops if she can't use the services of Planned Parenthood, while men have to do nothing to get cialis/viagra or a vasectomy, men have this procedure and medication covered by insurance.

i know it is hard for you to believe that some women cannot afford birth control, but it is really true, and most of them are NOT lazy and alcoholic, and drug addicts or smokers as is CONVENIENT for you all to believe. if her insurance does not cover birth control, the initial exam for a prescription for birth control costs 45.00 to 125.00. then there is the cost of a follow up vist, which can cost between 30.00 and 60.00. these visits may or may not be covered by insurance.

in regard to your statement above about muslims, the anti-tax, pledge pusher grover norquist is a muslim. he became one before he could marry his muslim "girlfriend", now his wife.

grover norquist has said, "islam is very compatible with the US constitution".

in feb. of 2011, at CPAC, frank gaffney warned CPAC about grover norquist spearheading the conservative movement to bring islamists in.

google "grover norquist muslim".

Chiming in, to ask......how many women here, men who have wives, who suffered severe menstruation cramps until they took the birth control pill? Or, the ones who are going through "the Change" in later life, that has been so successful in treating those pains, and mood swings? Think God, for the invention of these tiny little pills.

whomitmay

I'm not a clone..I'm a Conservative Republican Bagger....the real thing not a copy. I've been that way ever since I figured out that liberals wanted to cash in on MY success. If you like I'd be glad to share some of my know-how with anyone that's willing to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

GOMER !!!!!

Gomer clone. Tea bagging republicans are clones they are not individuals, as you can tell by their posts. They all say the same thing. Grunt grunt snort snort belch R good, snort snort grunt grunt belch D bad.

2ez,

in your post #7.4 above, you write-'being that contraception is elective, that birth is not a disease, why should the cost be covered by an employer or the tax payer?'

it is accepted by men, and understood by women that, as a general rule, the sex drive is stronger in men, it doesn't take much for arousal. men, as a general rule, are given a pass for irresponsible sexual behavior, because "they can't control their penis", while women who do the same thing are called sl*ts, wh*re's, easy and etc. you can't tell me that this ignorant, and self-serving attitude by men is one that has been tolerated for years, and once again, the repubs in washington are showing themselves as longing to digress to the dark ages, "the good ole days".

insurance company's cover viagra/cialis and vasectomy's for the man, so he can enjoy sex. for that reason only. these things are elective as well, but it is very important, "accepted and understood" that a man enjoy sex, but for women? not so much.

i do hope you see the hypocrisy in your statement above in regard to women and birth control if you believe that erectile dysfunction is a disease, one that insurance company's should cover.

at the very least i would hope you would see the unfairness of it.

And don’t people also get themselves in trouble when inspired by things other than religion?

Yes but you seem to have forgotten that people also draw religion into violence as well.

I like the “Bloody enough to stain the pages of history” and wonder if you have come to the same conclusion with Socialism?

why would I not? I suspect this is a thin veiled attempt to call me a baby killing nazi socialist....wrong...not surprising however

You readily condemn religion as a driving force behind these evil acts, do you do the same for Socialism an ideological movement responsible for millions upon millions of more death than all the religions of the world throughout time?

You readily deny religion as a driving force used to justify violence when in fact it and politics are often used as excuses for killing.

You can hang a Christian Banner on an Army, but that doesn’t make it Christian.

the same can be said of islam

Which is a more common motivation for murder, Christianity or Socialism?

does it matter in light of the fact that my point was simply to remind you that both are considered excuses for violence not to place any value judgement on either abstract concept.

You can continue to pretend that I'm trying to advocate for the down fall of religion which to you seems to be only christianity....while trying to promote socialism however this is all together false. I am simply reminding you that people use all manner of silly excuses for their savage actions. Someone could blame green eggs and ham for murder. Does that mean green eggs and ham innately encourages violence. No. Is that really going to stop someone from trying to say it does to beat the wrap? Sadly no.

Sadly what something does or does not say never stops anyone from claiming anything they want about it. Religion, politic, Dr. Seus.....

I never said Islam wasn’t a religion nor did I saw it wasn’t or for that matter shouldn’t be protected under the First Amendment. What I said
is Islam was incompatible with the Constitution

are you sure?

I am not sure who in the GOP you are referring to, but would ask if you believe Islam is compatible with our way of life and the US Constitution? I myself believe it is not

The bottom line, the religion itself is simply not compatible with Free Speech and as such the Constitution.

If an employer is freely providing health care insurance to employees with such a stipulation I would say go ask that employer what his reasoning was. The debate is not about employers willing to provide health insurance; it is about a government mandate to do so.

So then you believe employers should not have to provide any medical coverage at all forcing individuals to fight it out on the private market? Birth control is a prescription drug where is the logic begind not paying for a prescription drug in a plan that pays for prescription drugs? The debate is not as you falsely claimed it to be about a government mandate to hand out free birth control it is about whether women should be descriminated against for being carriers of ovaries.

It is difficult for me to see a Religion Hospital as being secular when the motivation behind the Church’s involvement with the hospital is based in the core values of the religion

There no such thing as "religion hospital" I don't know if you've actually walked in to one these "religion hospitals" but if you did you'd find that it is exactly the same as any other hospital....you don't have to be catholic to work there nor do you have to be catholic to be treated there....so no theology never actually factors into it.....it is in fact a secular institution

Now to clear your understanding of what that actually means, because I do suspect there is a lack of understanding, secular means that this not a church they do not hold services, they don't proselytize so no they aren't in fact religious. There are no priest running around doing doctoring.

The bible and other writings are the foundation of Catholic Doctrine.

That's one interpretation many other christians would in fact say different. But that's largely irrelavent since regardless of who you or the church claim is the foundation of their teaching we have clearly seen the church engage in actions that violate those like the inquisition, crusades, don't think Jesus told them to protect pedophiles in the pulpit either......

Christ taught us that a child’s labor was essential there should indeed be an
exception to laws prohibiting the practice.

Let's talk about honor killing if the koran said these acts should be sanctioned and championed and that all muslims should do them, although it really doesn't anymore so than the bible or most other man made holy books........does that mean the "exception to the laws prohibiting the practice" should be made. Now you'll likely try to work the murder and child labor are different angle but that really doesn't matter considering that all religions and religious people should be treated equal...right? So why should there be an exception for the Catholics to practice but not the Muslims, if that religion's teachings taught it should they be able to have their exemption? Or should the government favor one over the other?

Course all that is unimportant since this is a labor issue not a religious issue to begin with, point is there are labor laws for a reason and at a certain point religious employers of secular businesses can not have the ecspectation that their dogma will be upheld when starts to force their personal considerations on others.

If the Catholic Church didn't believe in child labor laws they should not have have allowances any more than a religion that would glorify violence should be allowed to do so.

whomitmay

The bagger philosophy of life is very simple and very fair. We worked for ours and now it's time for you to work for yours. Comprendo?

You did not work for yours, someone gave you a handout but you tea bagging republicans just can't seem to accept the fact that society has given you more then you gave. All you are doing is repeating that good old independent talking point that is meaningless in reality. I mean really there are no independent people today nor were there any in the past people depend on each other to survive, sorry to burst your tea bag but that is fact.

whomitmay

You must have me confused with someone else. During the last 20 years or so I paid between 60k and 100k a year in federal income taxes alone. That makes me officially part of the "provider" class. If it weren't for the "provider" class there would be no "recipient" class. A simple thank you would do nicely.

Gary Touche . . . you are sadly misinformed about what the Tea Potty is all about . . . the truth behind their movement is nothing more or less than a new dress on the old John Birchers . . . but hey . . . fantasy land seems to be really fun for you.

The Tea Potty (you libs are sooooo clever) is all about living within our means. 16 trillion in debt, soon to be 20 if Barry gets his way, is a bit much don't you think? How's this sound: We stop borrowing and spend only what we take in. I do it every single day............. it's easy!!!

16 trillion in debt, soon to be 20 if Barry gets his way, is a bit much don't you think? How's this sound: We stop borrowing and spend only what we take in

Sad part is that it would seem that the government that the American want can not run on only what is being brought in. Now on the political side its got very little to do with just Obama the fed has been going at this rate for years and the only republican with a plan to balance the budget is Ron Paul. Paul's plan is considered extreme even amongst some Republicans, and even then it would still take at three years

I do it every single day............. it's easy!!!

If only the same could be said about the federal government because in reality it isn't that's part of why it isn't happening now. Fact is there is not enough money to pay for all the government today so that makes tomorrow more complicated......and the debt will never be paid....ever by any president

Actually it could be by using FDR and Ikes tax codes on the wealthy, 80 to 92% tax on the wealthy that paved the way for the great society as well as the interstate road system. It lasted from 1933 until 1981, when Reagan took the country from the #1 lender of the world to the #1 borrower of the world. 37 years of tax cuts for the wealthy is what got us into the mess we find ourselves today. Where the problem lies is that the GOP have created a spending myth in those 37 years when the cause of the problem was really a income problem created by tax cuts and GOP loop holes that allowed the wealthy to do what Mittens has done, off shored his wealth into tax havens then using tax loop holes created by the GOP to benefit Baine CEO's so Mittens only pays 17% on the income he claims from his taxable accounts.

Whom is a perfect example of what is wrong with this country. He thinks that there is nobody out there who is successful that didn't get that way other than by means of a handout. Obviously, he just does not understand the concept of hard work. I have built a very small, but successful business, because I was willing to take a risk with money that I had SAVED. It has taken time, but the company has grown into something that provides me and my family a good life. We are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination...according to DemElizabeth we are actually in poverty because we make less than $100,000 a year. I work close to 60 hours a week keeping it going, but it is something that I have built through my own efforts.

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

www.fairtax.org

Stormguy53 You're a patriot, we need more like you.

It was Reagan that really lit a fire under my butt. He made it abundantly clear that the harder I worked the more I could put in my pocket. Because of Reagan my after tax income grew and the amount that went to the government also grew. It was a win...win!!!!

btw Mittens pays more than his share. 17% of 30 million is a lot more than 35% of nothing. He's a patriot also.

I see . . . so . . .

Tying his dog to the roof of his car makes him a patriot ?

Hiding Money in off shore banks so he does not have to pay taxes makes him a patriot ?

Sending jobs over seas makes him a patriot ?

Destroying businesses for profit makes him a patriot ?

Lying about how much me pays in taxes makes him a patriot ?

Flip flopping his views in order to pander to whomever he can get votes from makes him a patriot ?

And so much more . . .

You are seriously deluded sir.

LOL what a bunch of tea bagging nonsense.

It is funny how when a Republican takes advantage of a perfectly legal tax situation it is considered by Democrats to be "hiding money".

Has anyone asked the originator or the "Buffet rule"...if you are so willing to pay more taxes to the government, why are you fighting to not pay taxes that your company owes?

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

www.fairtax.org

MsT-2685837

If Mittens' money is "hidden" in offshore accounts...how do you know about it? I guess it's not "hidden" is it? I've got a few bucks offshore myself....it's perfectly legal and no big deal.

Bain Cap saved many businesses from going under by cutting costs including firing employees. It's better to can 20% of a workforce than 100%.

He tied his dog to the car???? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stormguy53...GerryTouche

These tax laws are not legal... it was all done through bribery.... or better known now as lobbyist.... shake down and boil out the legal mumbo-jumbo and you have bribery!

Along with back room deals... nothing about this tax code is fair or legal.

Tom..I would agree with you to a certain extent that this tax code is not fair. It is legal until which point the courts rule it is not. You might not like the codes, nor do I, but they are there and thus any person who takes advantage of them is within his/her legal rights.

Now...if you want to talk about tax reform, I am open for that discussion...lets start with www.fairtax.org. It is the best proposal available ...

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

Funny how he pushes a GOP ideal and then says both parties suck. Typical misinformed tea bagger.

and we are supposed to believe WHOM has his own agenda and been shown to deliberately mislead people on this site regarding the actual facts? I don't think so...

What's not fair about our tax laws is the fact that paying federal income taxes is optional. People that choose not to earn pay no taxes. Their slack has to be picked up by those that choose to earn. Laziness is rewarded, hard work is punished. Poverty should be a fate worse than death. Those that choose poverty should be "herded" into FEMA camps and given the very minimum to keep them alive.

gerry,

your post #7.27-"reagan really lit a fire under my butt".

the image that you all have of reagan as a CONSERVATIVE superman is a lie. it is something that you all keep telling yourselves, why?

you all hold him up as the super-conservative and the perfect commander in chief. but he is not the conservative you all seem to think he was. remember the interview with eric cantor by Leslie Stahl? reagan is eric cantor's idol, and he refuses to admit that reagan raised taxes. reagan compromised, and eric cantor cannot even bring himself to use the word "compromise", like all repubs.

even though reagan ran for office (both as gov. of california and president) on lower taxes, he was a SERIAL tax raiser, he raised taxes 11 times. i have read articles about reagan where they talk about economic growth during his term, and they cite his tax cut as the reason why. yet what they fail to mention is that he also RAISED TAXES 11 TIMES. as gov. of california, reagan signed into law, the "largest tax increase in the history of any state until then". alan simpson who was a close friend of ronald reagan said this, "reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration, I WAS THERE". histrian douglas brinkley, who edited reagans memoir, said, "reagan was never afraid to raise taxes, reagan the anti-tax zealot is false mythology".

reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. after the major tax cut in his first year, gov't revenue dropped off abruptly, which is why he raised taxes 11 times. despite the conervative myth that tax cuts increase revenue, the gov't went deeper into debt, and reagan raised taxes in just one year to try to stave off the impending deficit. even though he raised taxes 10 MORE TIMES, he was never able to get the deficit under control.

UNEMPLOYMENT SOARED AFTER REAGAN'S 1981 TAX CUTS. you all stick to your story that there was job/economic growth under reagan, but unemployment went up to 10.8 percent. income inequality soared because like the repubs in washington today, reagan raised taxes on the poor and middle class, and we know that since 1980 incomes for the poor and middle class has risen only 30%, while the rich have had their income quadrupled.

also, reagan grew the size of gov't, gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants, illegally gave weapons to iran (he was the first funder of the taliban and osama bin laden), gave them billions of dollars, along with TOP SECRET intelligence, and weaponry. reagan fought a "war" with the soviet union by training fighters in afghanistan by the means i mention above in this paragraph. the taliban and bin laden emerged from these groups that reagan help to "fund".

conservatives are in denial about reagan-about facts that they don't want to see as truth. do you not know his REAL legacy, or are you just playing dumb? rush limbaugh has said, "where do you get the idea that reagan raised taxes?

do you really not know that reagan raised taxes 11 times?????

ronald reagan cared more about UFO's than aids.

face the TRUTH about your annointed superhero.

Gerry, Stormy...

You both claim to be self-made men, with no government handouts.

How much did you pay for the roads and bridges to access your workplaces, to move your inventory out? How much did you pay to educate your workforce? How much did you pay to create your suppliers? How much did you pay to create the stores that sell your goods?

There is an old saying, "No man is an island..." Unless you built everything yourself, you are freeloading on something someone else paid for, often the government...

David - paying taxes and then using government services is not taking a government handout - it is called paying for necessary services. Liberals have this attitude that we should all be so thankful for everything that the government does. How is that paying taxes and expecting something in return is freeloading? With that reasoning if I placed an order at McDonald's, paid for it and they gave me a meal I would be a freeloader in your mind?

Guys like Gerry and Stormguy do pay for roads and bridges when the pay taxes on a gallon of gasoline, pay to use a toll road, or pay the state to renew vehicle registration, etc. They do pay to educate a workforce when they pay local tax and property tax, of which a great deal goes to local schools.

Pay to create suppliers? That is probably some other guy trying to make a living...not some agency created by the government to do us all a favor. The same thing with stores...how many stores do you go into created by the government? Those suppliers and stores you discuss also pay taxes - thus helping build roads and fund schools.

Except instead of paying the full price that a private business would charge you for said services the government allows you to use them at a cost of pennies on your dollar. Poor little pubicans just can't seem to grasp that like Reagan their party should be shoved in a hole and buried because like Reagan they do more damage then any good in fact when they do something good its usually an accident.

David...the term handout normally refers to getting something for free...I pay my taxes at a local, state and federal level. My property taxes pay for the public schools, even though my kids do not attend them. I pay my suppliers to be created every time I buy something from them. I pay the locations that utilize my services in the form of a monthly check for the privilege of being in their building.

"the government allows you to use them at a cost of pennies on your dollar."

You mean Mittens pays the same for government services as your average welfare mom pays? Geeee I didn't know that!!!

Oh so the government "allows" me to use their services, which I am forced to help pay for...what a concept. Pennies on the dollar? I wish...unfortunately people like me pay upwards of half their income in taxes.

But keep voting Democrat Whom maybe someday you will get the social justice and the revenge you crave so much.

Gotta love these Kock brother wannabe's. So you're paying almost 50% in taxes and you're not even out of school yet.

And stormguy, who paid the taxes to keep the school running so your kids had a school to go to?

And gerry, so people 'choose' to be poor so they don't have to pay taxes...LOL...Do you 'baggers even realize how stupid you sound?

Not to mention all the government programs I pay for, but don't use...while others pay zero taxes and receive more services...

Keep voting for republicans and some day soon you will find yourself fighting the rats for the last crumb of bread in your slum lord owned dump. Because the wealthy nor the republicans are going to make good on that golden handout the insane doddering old fool Reagan told you that you would get for kissing up to your betters.

I'm not in school anymore John - so as a working, productive member of society factoring in federal, state, local, and other taxes and fees I pay about 50%.

Get real Whom - the Democrat party is the party of handouts...the losers of this world are those that depend on government to make things "right" and take care of their every need. You should be supporting guys like me, the most productive members of society - we are the ones that support the nanny state you desire.

JIT...I help keep that school up and running with the taxes I pay every year...regardless of whether my kids are enrolled or not.

Not all people choose to become poor, but a lot of them find it easier to stay that way than to do what is necessary to get out of their situation. Yes, for some of them that might mean working 2 jobs or maybe more.

Right stormguy, your doing exactly what other people did before your kids went to school. But you're the one whining about it

LOL....I still get a kick out of your reasoning that people would rather be poor than pay taxes. Lots of people work two jobs but you're content to believe that anyone who doesn't is out to take all your money. Buy the way, what amout of money a year or below is considered poverty rate?

And junior, I read the other day that you said 'One day I'll be sitting at my desk looking at my degree on the wall' but you're out of school? How does THAT work? LOL.

John - you did not read correctly...I have a degree and a full-time job, I'm not a student anymore.

JIT...where did I whine about anything? Someone made a comment that I did not pay for the governmental services that I have received and I provided evidence that I did pay for them, in the form of property taxes for a school system that my kids do not use. How is that whining? It is just stating a fact...but then again, I know how much facts really mess with your mind.

Now, if I had made any editorial comments about it being unfair for me to pay for a school system that my kids do not utilize...then that would be whining. However, and unfortunately for you, that is not what I feel.

JIT...according to one of your fellow bloggers, anything under $100,000 a year is poverty. According to the government, it is a family of four making less than $22,100 a year (approx).

Yes...there are lots of people working two jobs...and congratulations to them for doing so. Please note that my original comment said ...a lot...not all or most.

Loose- Tex isn't really interested in facts. He lives for innuendo and propaganda

Rusty...you could have just said that he is a Democrat...everyone would know that it is the same thing.

As a retired government employee I think that you had better walk in a person's shoes before you say anything. I worked for 36+ years and enjoyed every second of it despite some of my bosses. Most were good but there was one bad apple but I got over it. Anyway, there were times, three years in a row in fact, where I and the rest of the people in my union didn't receive any increase in our take home pay. But, we did get increases in our sick leave and in other benefits, one of them was our pension fund. We realized that though the state could not pay us in cash the increased payment in benefits was worth it. These were negotiated benefits between the union that represented me and the state. I retired with a nice pension and sick leave benefits but after 36+ years I was only making just over $21.00 per hr. Not much for a person who has a professional degree. But my pension is fine and I can make it for now. The union did this for me and for many others; we didn't get paid a lot but we were willing to take our benefits later when we retired. By the way, the Wis. pension system is the 9th best in the US (it is also 99.5% funded) and it is in the top 20 of all pension funds world-wide. Remember one thing, that at times people are willing to not get paid a lot now but are willing to get better benefits at a later date when they retire. CEOs do the same thing when they get stock options and other benefits that are paid to them later.

O- your statements are not correct. You need to stop spreading lies. I have read other information. Let's see your specific data . Give one example of a state and cite your source. Your lies will not be allowed to stand on this site.

A recent study by USA today showed that 22% of federal workers make more than $100,000 annually versus about 7% in the private sector. My memory might be off slightly on the numbers, but I am pretty close.

If a pension was in effect while you worked because the union was able to negotiate it, congratulations..you have earned it and deserve to keep it. HOWEVER, things have to change from this point forward. Pensions are not a viable option in today's economy. Each state has the right to renegotiate the union contract when it comes up for renewal. If the benefit was negotiated in, it can and SHOULD be negotiated out.

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

Stormguy Unions negotiate contracts every time the contract is up. Its a give and take process thats been around for a long time. And whats the difference between states contributing to a public union's pension and companies contributing to a 401 K?

Stronguy - according to your facts 22% of government/federal worker make over $100,000. That would be the members of congress wouldn't it? Yep!

And then, only 7% of private sector jobs make over $100,000. Well, there are many more private sector jobs, so that means - by your own words, that the CEO's are keeping all the big money for themselves and paying poverty wages for the rest of the workers.

Thus the reason for UNIONS!!!!!!!!!!

Elizabeth...thus the reason to get unions out of the public sector. There are about 2,000,000 federal employees...I don't think that the 535 members of the House/Senate affect that percentage very much. I am not defending the amount they get paid or the job they do, just stating facts. So...according to you, anyone making less than $100K is making poverty wages?

JIT...I am well aware that contracts are renegotiated, that is why I made the comment about doing so when it came up for renewal. The difference is the amount of money that the person has to contribute and the type of plan that is implemented.

Anything under $100.000 is pretty much poverty. I make $52,000.00 per year with one dependent and I can not even afford a vacation! The cost of utilities, tithes, insurances, mortgage, car payments, retirement, food, fuel, car expenses, etc I do not live comfortable. I struggle and do without. I can only afford food from Walmart and even then it is insane how much it costs.

Yep, in this high-priced economy, I am under water breathing through a straw, which causes constant stress.

I am speaking in generalities here, not specifics about your situation. Americans have gotten fat and happy over the last 30-40 years. We have bought into the media blitz that tells us we need things that are bigger, smaller, faster, slower. Houses are almost twice as big as they were then. We all carry cell phones with us wherever we go. We have 2-4 TV's in a house (flat screen of course). We eat out twice to three times as often as we used to.

The only reason that $52,000 a year isn't enough for people with one dependent to live on (once again, generally speaking and not referring to your specific situation) is that the person thinks they deserve to have everything in life that there is to have. Guess what...we only deserve the things that we can afford.

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

Sir you are not counting the staff of the congressmen

Strong-rather Weak

What is "everything" in life even mean???????? Buy clothes, shoes and underwear? Go to Florida once in a year for a few days? You are spewing the right-wing lying talking points. Oh, by the way I forgot to mention that for every dollar I spend in groceries, I spend 10% in local taxes. So my grocery bill of $100.00 is always $110.00 every time I spend.

It is a reaction such as yours that helps the republican party dismantle the middle class. I do without, I wear the same thing over and over and over. I do not go to the movies often, I do not go out to eat often etc., etc.

The removal of Glass-Steagal allowed this travesty of financial rape to our economy. Our state has raised the amount we pay for retirement, thus reneging on their contract, just by passing a law. The republicans have set up a disaster in the making. But, they sure aren't hurting with all of their tax breaks, monies off-shore and cut-off of only having to pay up to a point on Social Security.

You have no idea of what you are saying about the economy or the realities of what is going on in our financial systems or the true middle-class experience.

I am voting for President Obama because he is trying ,against the republicans opposition, to make things right by ending the Bush tax cuts.

DemE...Please go back and take a look at the fact that is said I was not talking about your specific situation because I do not have enough information to do so.

You have no idea what my personal situation is so you should not pass judgement on me. FYI, I am a middle class person who owns their own business with no employees. I work 60 or so hours a week and make a little more than you do, but no much. I am married and have 3 kids living at home. I have a real good idea about what is going on in our country.

Sounds to me that is you are paying 10% tax on your groceries, that you should join your local Tea Party and work to having your state/local government cut their budget and reduce expenses.

BTW...they are not tax cuts, they are tax rates and unless you are willing to accept taxes being raised on EVERYONE who received the reduced rates, then you are not being "FAIR". Obama's latest budget continues down the road of economic doom with massive budget deficits. Even if you do raise the rates on just the "wealthy" it does not come close to putting a dent into the hole that Obama is digging.

At what point does Obama man up and start taking some responsibility for the mess he has created? Was some of it created by Bush...yes! Was some of it created by Clinton...yes! Was some of it created by the Republicans...yes! Was some of it created by the Democrats....yes!

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

Gjelly..ok, since you seem to know all the answers, how many people out of the 440,000 federal employees that make over $100,000 annually are employed by members of Congress? Lets just say there are 40,000 for the sake of argument...than means there are still over 400,000 federal employees making in excess of that amount.

I don't care where any of them work, when there are three times as many people in the public sector making over $100,000 as there are in the private sector, then something is wrong.

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

No ! No! No! You are spewing republican points only, I do not buy this - Both parties are wrong BS.

I don't care if raising taxes on only the wealthy isn't enough! It is the first order of business that should be done. After, the 'tax rates' are raised for them, then we can look at other things. Raising the tax rates for the wealthiest should be a priority. Period.

President Obama has done a remarkable job in spite of the vicious obstruction thrown in his path. Just imagine how much better America would be now if President Obama had responsible republicans to govern with him instead of the NO NO NO whiny babies he was tossed.

Why is it that when a Democrat can't address comments with a logical response, they always claim that the comments are just "right wing talking points"?

It is estimated that by raising the tax rates back to the Clinton era on top wage-earners only, that the government would raise $40 billion a year. Or about 3% of Obama's projected deficit. Until the government reals in their out of control spending, nothing is going to really make a difference...oopps...there is another one of those nasty talking points. It is a shame when talking points are really just facts that you don't want to recognize.

If you truly don't believe that both parties are to blame for the mess we are in, you are just an ostrich with her head stuck in the sand.

I guess you consider the investment into Solyndra to be a responsible action by our president.

Why is it that you tea bagging republicans can only spew talking points and claim its logic when all it really is amounts to what you believe it means. Beliefs and logic don't mix and you will find few liberals that put belief over logic. No both parties are not equally guilty for the mess we are in, only one party caused the mess. Reagan took the US from the #1 loaner country to the #1 borrowing country where it has remained since.

Point Proven.

DemEliz- I find it interesting that you seem to blame repeal of Glass-Steagle as the problem, then try to say only the Republicans are to blame. If you discuss the repeal of G-S, then you know that it was repealed on a vote of 90-8 in the Senate and signed into law by Bill Clinton. If that truly is what caused this- then even an ardent Democrat would have to say 90-8 was pretty bi-partisan- and Clinton was a Democrat. Would you care to explain how you can make the above accusation?

Yaba dab ba do I wanna be a tea bagger too. Just more of the same old lame debunked nonsense again. Poor tea bagging republicans still playing the golden oldies.

Rusty..Please dont confuse these people with facts...it really will mess with their minds more than they can handle.

Ya'll should have watched UP with Chris Hayes this morning!! and Melissa Harris-Perry.

I get up at 6:00. I am not going over it again for you. Review the tape.

DemEliz- I find it interesting that you seem to blame repeal of Glass-Steagle as the problem, then try to say only the Republicans are to blame. If you discuss the repeal of G-S, then you know that it was repealed on a vote of 90-8 in the Senate and signed into law by Bill Clinton

Ah as I like to say the bankrupting of our nation has been a bipartisan exercise.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/foreclosure-phil

Also it wasn't as bi partisan as our tea bagging friend suggests here is the actual vote numbers on the repeal

The GLBA passed the Senate 54-44. [www.senate.gov]

Oh yeah the senate make up in 1999 was 57 R 42 D and 1 I, yep thats bipartisanship alright if you are a tea bagging republican that is.

Thank you WHO- for trying to enlighten our uninformed 'friends'.

DEM ELIZABETH....dont be so quick for thanking WHOM about enlightening anyone. It is very obvious that we can not count of WHOM to tell the complete truth, only the part that advances his personal agenda.

FYI...the vote in the Senate to repeal GLBA was 54-44 and the House vote was 343-86. It then went to a conference committee to be re-worked and then came back to the floor for another vote where it was passed by a vote of 90-8 in the Senate and a 362-57 vote in the house...clearly showing bi-partisan support. President Bill Clinton (DEMOCRAT) then signed the new legislation into law.

Dummycrats hate it when inconvenient things like facts get in the way of the lies they like to spout.

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

www.fairtax.org

DemElizabeth

The CEO of the company I worked for made 6 mill during his last year..(he died at his desk at work). We had 30,000 employees. If that 6 mill was divided among the 30,000 each would get 200 bucks.

While he was CEO the company's headcount went from 7,000 to 30,000....another patriot.

Gerry- don't get your point. ?

Strong- I reviewed some info- Yes, the democrats bought republican lies, that I would be in agreement about. The act had wording such as

"consumer's would benefit from robust competition.." Funny how there was no mention of the need for a bailout if things went a little awry !

Republican policies are sheer evil wrapped up in religious verbiage.

I would add that the repeal of Glass-Steagle is an experiment in the failed republican arguments that....' the economy just needs competition without regulation.'

Democrats have allowed far too much of the republican mantra's such the 'trickle-down' lies to influence their voting in congress.

It is time to put true democrats back into office and repeal the damage they have done to our American policies.

Obama/Biden 2012 Full Democratic slated down the line!!

DEM E...even when you admit that the facts presented show that your fellow liberals have lied, you have to try and find a way to defend your position and make yourself feel better for believing them. I guess Clinton believed their lies also...he was pretty stupid wasn't he? Pretty sad...

For the record...I am not in favor of any governmental bailout for any company unless the government is also going to bail my company out if things go wrong.

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

Funny how you keep saying both parties suck yet you tow the GOP line. Typical attempt at supporting the GOP while pretending that you aren't. I guess your are one of those Libertarians who just believe the GOP isn't gutting the country fast enough for you.

So Strong - Are you going to abdicate your right to vote by staying home on election day or are you going to vote for a person representing the harmful, insidious policies of the republican party?

Are you going to give a vote of support to the republican party that "sucks"? Your intentions of blogging here will be exposed if you can't answer the question.

DemE...you might want to consider a career as a Democratic pollster. The way you phrase your question is much like the way that they do it in order to get their desired results.

If there is a viable third party candidate, I will seriously consider voting for him/her. If not, then I have the obligation as a citizen of the US to make a decision as to which candidate sucks less, regardless of their party.

I have never said that I am not a Republican, Believe it or not, it is okay to disagree with your own party about the direction they are taking the country...you Dummycrats should try it some time.

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

Strong - thanks for the off-handed compliment (my favorite kind) and for being somewhat honest. You're just an ol' republican trying a deceptive tactic to keep the repudiated republican policies from being reversed.

You are very correct about one thing - Republicans Suck!

Democrats are MARVELOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Simply MARVELOUS !!!

Whats even funnier is he keeps insisting that the GLBA won by a vote of 90 to 8 yet no where does he give his source for said information,. When you go to the government site all they have on GLBA is it passed 54 to 44. Funny I guess the tea bagging republican believes that his word is good around here after all he has so far posted nothing factual but hey his word is good. ROFLMAO, he is a re reg that hasn't gotten the attention of the mods.

WHOM...I will indulge your stupidity this one time, only because I feel sorry for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act

go to the REPEAL section of the article and you can read the FULL truth. From this point forward, you are the one who will be considered to be posting only partial truths in your comments.

Actually, all of my comments have been factual. You might not like them, but they are factual. If you don't believe me, please find one comment that I have made that is not and we can discuss it. Otherwise, don't waste my time with your unfounded accusations.

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

Sorry but again you are telling a half truth as once the GLBA passed both houses it went into committee to hash out the differences between the house bill and the senate bill, the final vote was just a formality. Once the GLBA passed the senate it was over as a rule.

Please note that in my very first comment I stated that it went to committee to be reworked and that then it came out for a final vote. In actuality, I told the whole truth.

Unfortunately, you can not say the same thing...good try, but you are exposed.

No you tried to say that it passed with a 90 to 8 vote like that was a bi partisan effort when in fact it passed by 54 to 44 along party lines an typical tea bagging bait and switch tactic meant to distort the truth from the fact that it was a GOP bill passed by a GOP controlled congress. Honesty would have been if you had said that the bill passed by 54 to 44 along party lines before it went to committee where it then passed by 90 to 8 again.

WHOM...

Go back and read my original post at 12.25 and then you can slink back under your rock because as usual, you are wrong. Honesty is something that you have trouble knowing anything about because if you did, you would have told the entire story like I did. Additionally, you would have reported that the vote in the HOR was a bi-partisan count of 343-86 on the original vote and 362-57 on the re-vote. But you like to pick and choose your facts to meet your personal agenda instead of being "fair".

Also, please note that there was one Democrat who voted for the repeal in the original vote...thus making it bi-partisan using the same logic that the Obama administration used regarding the vote on health care.

Yeah a blue dog from SC. Funny how 1 blue dog makes the bill bipartisan, just more dishonesty at play. Guess you ignore that 1 republican voted against it.

yeah...kinda like you forgot to mention that one Democrat voted for it...

DemEliz- sorry for making this uncomfortable for you, but when you watch shows that are leading, and you don't understand the elements in them- you can be led like a sheep down the path the host wants to take you. Once you realize that- just let it go and learn your lesson- to verify. It does you no good to eventually acknowledge facts- then make the excuse that Democrats were gullible- that's why they voted for something and then had their President sign it.

Would you believe- NAFTA was also under Clinton's watch? Not only that- but after Bush II did the wrong thing and made the Mexican Truckers stop at the border, just several months ago- Obama did the right thing and is now allowing Mexican Truckers all the way across the states? I'll defend him on that- but wonder if you will- or do you think he was hoodwinked by Republicans as well?

To bad rabid tea bagging republicans weren't sterilized back in the 30's before they had a chance to procreate.

Santorum is certainly mucking up the waters for those trying to control the GOP. He makes a whole new dynamic in this year's presidential sweepstakes, doesn't he?

No, there's nothing new about a guy who has been in politics for well over a decade.

Not generalities, what has he said or done that makes him sound racist, homophobic, sexists, etc?

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them someone else's money" but I'm sure you're gullible enough to think he said "blah"...yes the blah americans were who he was talking about...ha ha...ha

Comparing gay relationships to man on dog....but I'm sure he meant that as a complement right? Nothing homophobic about that is there?

Family values? Good.

Telling American families what their values had better be..no...not good

Balanced budget? Good

no balanced budget made by Santorum, no plan that would in fact do that since only Ron Paul's plan actually tackles that strongly

Reduce waste in government? Good.

yeah that and ice cream and cake in the cafeteria everyday.....not really reducing government waste just starting a war of choice with Iran.

He's not Obama, but what is really wrong with the guy? Just wondering.

If you haven't been paying attention(seems likely) you'd see Santorum is a theocrat who would like this nation shred the constitution to replace it with his own personal religious values. Santorum is one the GOP politicians who thinks he has the right to use government power to force his values on the people. Rick's tax plan favors the rich over the middle class even more than Mitt Romney's and that says something. Furthermore Santorum seems to lack the balls to call out birther idiots like the woman at one his rallies......he just sat there and let her spew her Obama's a foreigner, muslims are evil garbage.......that infamous debate where he "didn't" hear the booing of the deployed soldier who was gay........why should we believe he can face America's enemies if he doesn't have the courage to stand up to America's clowns?

Santorum also suffers from the same disease pervasive in the GOP that returning to the constitution means freeing the people to live exclusively by christian law....fun fact not in the constitution

He also believes everyone should pay their own medical expenses, no matter what they are. Well, he is a millionaire and still uses his Congressional Health plan. So he is not paying his own medical expenses either.

He also believes everyone should pay their own medical expenses, no matter what they are. Well, he is a millionaire and still uses his Congressional Health plan. So he is not paying his own medical expenses either.

it's easy for a millionaire like Santorum to say the people should pay all their medical bills out of pocket but it's just unrealistic

Having said this when the employer gives a healthcare coverge plan it is not free....people have to work and continue to work for that employer to get that plan.

Why not ask the people of Pa. what's wrong with him ? I mean, when he loses his re-election battle by 18 perchantage points there must be something wrong with him.

Good point, Denny. I always thought it was humorous to blame the Supreme Court for 2000 when Gore couldn't even carry Tennessee. It does make those arguments sound kind of silly, doesn't it?

Wow Richard . . . racist bigot much ?

What about Right-Wing, Racist, Republicon, Robber Baron, Rump Ranger, Treasonous bastards who :

Shipped American jobs over seas for decades taking trillions of dollars in workers' pay out of our economic system ?

Siphoned trillions of dollars out of the American banking system for decades through criminal financial activities ?

Bilked trillions of dollars for decades out of the military industrial system through fraudulent and deceptive record keeping ?

Criminally sent trillions of dollars over seas for decades to prop up puppet dictators of foreign countries and then fraudulently spent trillions of dollars on wars to take these bogus leaders out of power ?

Unethically paid out trillions for decades in farm and corporate subsidies where they were not needed ?

Knowingly ripped off the Stock Market for trillions of dollars for decades and then sent this ill gotten gain off shore to banks where the robber barons do not have to pay taxes or give anything back to the Americans whom they stole it from ?

You don't seem to be angry about ANY of this Richard . . . people of your political persuasion NEVER ARE !!

The actions mentioned about are TREASON against the security of America at the very least and punishable crimes . . . put that under your KKK hood and smoke it sir !!

When will we get unbiased treatment in our elections by the Jewish media mafia that controls the private federal reserve! Only a matter of time before you treasonist bastards get prison time with the ones of whom you are stealing from!KARMA is a #$&^%$

Right on Richard...can I call you Dick...I'm gonna call you Dick

Yes three cheers for anti-semeticism for the nation that prides itself as being one of the most diverse on the planet where all peoples are treated equally

Hip, Hip......oh my, did you really just say that.........Hip, Hip......sorry I'm just trying to catch my breath from that......Hip, Hip.......take that crap back to your local klan rally where that belongs

......you and Peter Bremilow

It's just mind boggling that in the 21st century there are still some folk who don't think that all people should be treated equal. it's a sad commentary on the state of our species.....almost makes you hope there really isn't a God up there because he/she/it would be very, very disappointed.

lets make sure that this is very clear...all people are created equal and deserve equal rights and equal treatment under the law as long as they are legal citizens of our country. That also means that we must be "fair" in our tax program and all people must be taxed equally.

www.fairtax.org

BOTH PARTIES SUCK

But he lies for the GOP which is rather telling about his actions.

PLEASE POINT OUT ONE LIE THAT I HAVE TOLD. JUST ONE...THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO DO AND YOU PROVE ME WRONG. However, you can't do it. All you can do is cast unfounded accusations around. No wonder you are a Dummycrat.

You are a tea bagging republican posting right wing nonsense on a liberal blog trying to pretend you are an independent yet have not once posted a independent post. Great move can't wait I knew it was you all along as did others.

Where did I ever claim to be an independent?

quack quack

whomitmay,

Trolldar hit at 15.5, think that could be a good tag.

think that makes you a ace as well as a few others. LOL history this is going to be like the great Marianas turkey shoot. right up to Nov.

PS I knew almost from his very first post that it was a re reg, he is also posting under a second re reg, he tries to avoid using them together because he believes he has his tail figured out. Little does he realize that he won't be able to see his tail because it is hard wired into his writing skills from years of practice. That is why most won't try it we understand the bad habits we picked up over the years that our writing styles make us the imperfect human beings we are, they believe they are perfect.

Just out of curiosity, who am I supposed to be that has been on this blog previously?

LOL

well i am sure you can answer that all by yourself, just look in your laundry bag.

Stormguy53

If you're anti-nanny state that makes you the enemy. Get it?

You lucky SOB, BM tickets. It is really really funny how after 37 years of GOP being 100% wrong on every issue as well as the GOP elite have been caught using everything they say they are against, the brain dead tea bagging supporters continue to push that they are right on how to solve the nations problems while ignoring that 1) it was GOP policies that created those problems 2) they are not changing anything they have been pushing for 37 years which caused those problems 3) a failed policy will continue to fail no matter how many times you use it. Really if there were some way to induce pain whenever a tea bagging republican supporter posted their stupidity maybe then they would learn instead of believing.

OR,

love love love Bill Maher!

whom...

Only 37 years? I would go back to Richard Nixon and Spiro T. Agnew in 1968... That would make it 43...

True but it really didn't get real bad until Reagan brought Hoover nomics back. Nixons mess was a cake walk up until Reagan got his way.

I used to think that Ronald Reagan was the worst president ever and that we'd never again have a president as bad as him. Then along comes George Bush Jr.

denny,

well said!

We've had a good number of bad ones since Reagan. Bush I and Clinton may have been the only ones who actually made things work. Throw the last two in a bag, shuffle them up, and you get about the same no matter which you pull out.

David M. Johnston

whom...

Only 37 years? I would go back to Richard Nixon and Spiro T. Agnew in 1968... That would make it 43...

Yes David.... Nixon gave us our HMO's

It was good reading you guys giving them righties a what-for...

Do any of them have brains or are they all pre-recorded dummies?

Nope they are products of a breeding program started by their grand parents after the Scopes monkey trial. Which proves birth control should be made mandatory for republicans.

David

I get a kick out of lefties calling Republicans dummies, then in the same breath beg the same Republicans for money because the lefties are flat broke.

We get a kick out of re regs coming back after a ban. Why? Because its rather amusing to see if you are the person we thought you were.

Really is Quinn a governor in a battle ground state facing recall?

So, Rusty, may I ask why you wander around the vines, sense you say it is a waste of time? Are we your buffet line?

CC- you're right in your implicit statement that it is all politics (implying that since Wisconsin is a battleground state and Illinois isn't). That was my point as well.

We both seemingly agree the difference is the politics involved, and that was my point en toto.

Rusty my boy you compaired Quinn to Walker and that is simply not the case. But you are trying to make it look like it is. Is Quinn looking to kill unions by doing the same things soon to be unemployed Scotty is doing in Wisconsin? Give examples if you think so.

I think I did- above. From AFSCME's own site. Can you imagine if a Republican Governor made an agreement with the State Union- pushed through a huge tax increase on both personal and corporate taxes- with the Union's support- then decided to not recognize the elements in the contract? And then decides to revamp their health care, wage raises, grievance procedure, then criticizes other Governors for their approaches to the State Unions? If he were a Republican- Ed would be talking about Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois- and ole Tex would be jumping on the bandwagon as well talking about the evil Republicans in those four states.

Same Acts- different ways of being treated by the press you choose to subscribe to. Another way of saying politics is much more important to you folks than reality. You are pretty much the same exact species you claim House Republicans to be. Against anything of one party, and for anything of the other. You've reached the same- but opposite low.

Trying to talk to a tea bagging republican is like trying to talk to a dinning room table and has the same result, they don't listen so its a waste of time. Barney Frank to a tea bagging republican at a town hall meeting. Paraphrased.

Are you ever going to stop whining about people venting on this blog site Capt ???

No one is forcing you to be here OR to agree with any of us.

I don't imagine you are on any Right-Wing blog sites telling them to behave and talk nice . . .

Give it a rest Capt.

Nope capt thinks it is his god given right to come on liberal blogs spread his history rewrites, racist beliefs and Fox news misinformation without anyone having the right to call him on his racist homophobic bigotry.

Exactly whomitmay . . .