Cleo's Mom

When a drunk driver kills a person we as a society not only hold him reponsible but the bartender who kept serving an obviously drunk person more drinks. That's the same irresponsible behavior from those on the right who started all this hatred of the government and promoting second amendment remedies. They too are responsible and owe this whole nation an apology.

from correntewire.com: UPDATE Gawker has an eyewitness account: We spoke to an eyewitness, Steven Rayle, who was on the scene at the time of the shooting and helped to hold the suspect down while waiting for police. Here's what he said: The event was very informal: Giffords had set up a table outside the Safeway and about 20-30 people were gathered to talk to her. The gunman, who may have come from inside the Safeway, walked up and shot Giffords in the head first, "point blank". According to Rayle, who is a former ER doctor, Giffords was able to move her hands after being shot. After shooting Giffords, the gunman opened fire indiscriminately for a few seconds, firing 20-30 rounds and hitting a number of people, including a kid no older than 10 years old. Rayle hid behind a concrete pole and pretended to be dead. When the gunman apparently ran out of ammunition he attempted to flee, but a member of Giffords' staff tackled him. Rayle helped hold the gunman down while waiting for the sheriff to arrive, about 15-to-20 minutes later. The EMS came about 30 minutes later. Rayle said he was "stunned" by how long it took medical help to arrive Also posted on freerepublic.com and the atlantic. com I guess they're all crackpot sources too. You are so typical of the necons on the right. If something factual (like science, CBO reports, the unemployment numbers) doesn't fit with your views - well then just ignore, dismiss, mock or deflect from the facts.

Her dad ought to know: The New York Post has a story on the Giffords shooting, and her weeping father goes there. This is apparently exclusive, though you never know with the Post: Her father Spencer Gifford, 75, wept when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies. "Yeah," he told The Post. "The whole tea party." The dad, who was rushing to University Medical Center in Tuscon, said that politicians constantly faced danger. "They always get threat[ened]," Gifford cried.

Here's a fun little screenshot from your beloved dailykos, they were so kind as to remove this so they could bash palin for a bit, seems they forgot, this is the internet, once it's there it's there for good. Does this put blood on the daily kos' hands as well CM? Sharon Angle and other tea party candidates who ran against more moderate republicans in the primaries learned that. They ran on extremist positions in the primaries so as to garner those crazy tea party votes and they posted these positions on their websites and on videos. Then when they won and had to run in a general election they had to pull back from these extreme positons obviously forgetting that there was such a thing as the internet and videos to capture there positions forever. That's how so much of the republican hypocrisy is documented. And since you never site your sources we don't know from which right wing whacko source you quote.

Just another diversion from what is going on. Let's try to get your attention away from the current situation. Put you on the defensive. You neocons are such experts at that. Won't work. Most of the violence against the government and what it represents is by right wing extremists and you can post all the articles you want about left wing this and that and that doesn't change the fact. THOSE WHACKOS ON THE RIGHT WHO HATE THE GOVERNMENT ARE THE BIGGEST CAUSE OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM. Who was the last conservative targeted? Reagan?

It isn't a matter of being pro-gun or pro-gun laws. It's a matter of the way Palin, Bachmann and Angle promote the use of guns. It is reckless to put cross hairs on the targets of congressmen, or talk about second amendment remedies when you don't like the way things are going, or to tell your constituents to arm themselves and rise up. This is irresponsible and they and those on whacko talk radio and tv who promote all this anti-government rhetoric just fan the flames of the crazed minds in this country and they have the blood on their hands.

The shooter was a law abiding citizen with a gun until he shot someone. Every law abiding citizen with a gun is just one shot away from being a criminal. And that's just what we need - a bunch of citizens in a crowd firing away. All that would have accomplished is a higher death toll.

It took the EMT 30 minutes to arrive at the scene. I wonder if the angel of death - Gov. Brewer - had anything to do with cutting funding to them, too?

My thoughts on the original post: I don't think the surgeons do a good job explaining the band at the required pre-op seminar. That is why so many are surprised that they will be hungry after surgery and before a fill. Or that they may have permanent left shoulder pain. Or that you could have significant pain after surgery Or that some would require the band to be so tight as not to be able to eat Breakfast in order to lose weight. Or - and this is the one no one would be told - that the band doesn't work for everyone like it is promoted. It is promoted as controlling your hunger. It has never worked that way for me (and others on here) at any fill level I was at. My inability to eat due to restriction did not translate into satiety. As to searching for things - I find the search feature on this forum to be very frustrating and not easy to find things. The old way was much better before they updated everything. So it could be that people want to find specific things but can't. And I am not a newbie. I have been around for awhile.

Update: The little 9 year old girl who was shot died. So very, very sad. And senseless.

This should send a chill up the spine of every SANE, RATIONAL person: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/8/934297/-Second-Amendment-Remedies-(pictures,-continuing-updates)

At first CNN was reporting that she was dead. Now they are saying she is in surgery. Nine people were shot and are in serious or critical condition, including a child. Congressman Giffords was one of 10 congressmen harassed for her pro-healthcare stance. The window of her local office was smashed. The constant, non-stop hate coming from the right wing talk radio and tv just inflames and provides the ammunition that these demented people need to carry out their fatal plans. Some on neocon forums are saying maybe she was shot because she wasn't liberal enough. Yeah, right. Keep thinking that in your half a brain. First a package to Napolitano blows up and now this. When will it end? When they finally get Obama? Case in point: Sarah Palin's website Up until about half an hour ago, this page showed a map with 20 crosshairs, then it got taken down, and now it's been completely re-made with no map of showing where to aim your gun at: Another case in point: Those tea party candidate (e.g. Sharon Angle) who advocated for second amendment remedies when they didn't like how things were going and whacko MIchelle Bachman who wants her constituents armed and rising up. They and those who voted for them have blood on their hands. Update: (3:50 PM) - they are saying she is expected to pull through but 6 have died. One of them shot was a federal judge.

Have you ever noticed that the neocons always know someone who knows someone who abused the system. All they can provide is anecdotal evidence that can't be proven. Don't confuse them with the facts. Most of medicaid goes to nursing home patients. These are people who require 24/7 and skilled care. Should we just throw them out on the street? You're right - there are no jobs because corporate America would rather sit on their 2 trillion dollars in assets and reap the tax cuts just given than hire more people. They will just continue to overwork the employees they have. As to China and India. They might not have as many corporate regulations we have but what about pollution to the air and water? They don't care. We should. What about the rights and safety of their workers? They don't care. We should. What about the salaries of their workers? Can they make a living? They don't care. We should. We are better than them and de-regulating is not the answer. Then we become like them. We have got to stop using the term "cutting spending" and start using the term "investing in America's future". That is what China and India is doing. That is how we compete with them. By investing in infrastructure, education, energy, research & development, technology, medicine. Make sure our nation is brought into the 21st century instead of going backward like the republicans want to take us. They want to undo progress and move us backward. And those in need in this country would starve to death if dependant on the generosity of others. BTW, loserbob, how did your wife's test turn out? Okay, I hope.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The recession (job loss) actually started in 2007. Under and because of bush. By the time Obama took office about 700,000 jobs a month were being lost. He slowed that loss down and then turned it positive. By the time the job losses ended about 8 million jobs were lost. During the last 12 months, due to Obama's economic policies, we have had positive job growth. Positive job growth means more jobs created than lost each month. It doesn't mean we have made up the 8 million jobs that were lost. That's going to take time. If you can prove that 6 million jobs were lost in 2010 please do so. And yes - bad economic policies, banks failing, bailout of them and massive job loses = bush Reduce job loses, create positive job growth, improved stock market = Obama.

Please provide proof from BLS that 6 million jobs were lost in 2010. What I found is this: Employed Dec. 2009 - 137,960,000 Dec. 2010 - 139,206,000 Doesn't add up to 6 million jobs lost. Must be that tea party math.

I ask that you watch the video about half way down - from Austen Goolsby, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. If you can find any factual info to refute what he says or find anyone else who wants to go back to the policies that created the red bar - please post them: http://blog.markcz.com/obama-racine-midterm-election-warmup/

If you look at what I said -I said they wanted Obama to fail and thus America. He is the president. If he fails, then so does the country. Nothing gets done. I stand by what I said, I proved it and you are backpedaling. As I said I would welcome socialism over whatever disastrous economic policies the decade of decline/loss under bush was. We had a great 8 years under Clinton and then when the republicans controlled everything - disaster struck. If their goal is to get the White House and Senate, too, it won't be any different. And as for unemployment figures. Of course you are going to go into complex analysis to paint it in the bleakest picture but it swings both ways. If it rises, then I will just say that's not an accurate figure, it's just that more people are looking for work who previously hadn't, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Cenk Uygur Host of The Young Turks Posted: July 23, 2008 12:20 PM If We Drill in the US, We Don't Get the Oil One thing has been driving me crazy about this drilling debate -- everyone seems to assume that if we drill for oil in the US, that we will get the oil. And hence, we won't be dependent on foreign oil anymore. But we won't get anything, Exxon-Mobil will. The oil that comes from that drilling will not be United States property (Republicans aren't suggesting we nationalize the oil companies, are they?). It will be the property of whichever oil company got the rights to that contract. They can then sell it to whoever they like -- and they will. They will sell it on the world market, so the Chinese will have just as much access to the oil that comes out of the coast of Florida as we will. The Democrats have done a decent job of beating back the argument that this will effect prices in the short run, or even in the long run. But no one has addressed the point above. The Republicans make it seem like we won't be dependent on foreign oil -- and that prices will go down in the US -- if we have our own oil. But it won't be ours. And it will be sold on the world market, so its effect on global oil prices will be even smaller. When we ask the question of whether there should be drilling off the coast of Florida or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we should ask the question this way -- would you be comfortable with the Chinese or the Germans or Russians or the Saudis drilling on American land? Because for all intents and purposes, they will be. Large multi-national firms like Exxon-Mobil are not US property. They sell to the world and their allegiance is to corporate profits. So, when they drill, they drill for the whole world, not just us. Some might find that heart-warming, but it certainly has nothing to do with the US having more oil or lower prices. This post is for those who think that the oil drilled in and offshore in the U.S. belongs to us. A common misconception.

Don't backpedal now. When I made the original assertion that the republicans wanted to block Obama's agenda before he was even sworn in, you said something to the effect that if I could show that any of them said that that you would vote for Obama or some such thing. These repubicans wouldn't have cared if he had claimed that America was in the north America - they would have disagreed. Like I said, they voted against bills that they proposed after Obama supported them. Now tell me - how is socialism? I exposed all this on other forums here in great detail. Socialism - another buzz word from the neocons. They like to say it as they pick up their SS checks on the way to their doctor paid by medicare. Anyway, everything Pres. Obama has done has helped this economy. Not as fast as impatient Americans would like - but 18 months of positive job growth is impressive. The stock market going from 6000 to 11000 points and helping those retirement and investment funds (that tanked under bush) to grow is also impressive. But people are still hurting and he has done what he can to help the unemployed with benefit extentions. Our unemployment would be 15% without the stimulus and other things Pres. Obama has done. He doesn't get credit for what didn't happen. If getting this economy moving in the right direction is socialism, I'll take it over whatever we had under the disastrous years of bush - a/k/a the decade of loss.

The method for determining the unemployment figure is the method. Period. You can always do extensive analysis of all the economic implications of this figure. But you damn well know that if it went up .4% the republicans wouldn't be looking deeply as to why. They'd blame Obama.

If we start making things in this country and stop importing them, yes they will cost more but people will be working and able to afford them for the most part. Henry Ford knew this idea. He payed his workers more than what would have been the prevailing wage at the time. Why? Because he was smart and he wanted his employees to be able to buy his product. We could make clothes in this country and horror - even by union workers. If we put people to work making clothes that promotes all the associated industries. This puts people to work and then they have money to spend. This spending stimulates the economy. Putting people to work, who pay taxes, and stimulating the economy will go a long way to reducing the deficit. As for tariffs. Yes, raise tariffs on everything. And start making things other countries want. Like computers and cell phones and all that technology stuff. Export more. And if countries like India and China won't buy our stuff or play hardball then maybe we could stop letting their people come here to go to medical school. Just a thought. I don't know the logistics behind how it would work. That's what we pay our elected officials to do. Advocate for us and our country. Corporate America is always looking for the best game in town no matter where it is - they have no loyaty to our country.

Why are Republicans bashing Obama's tax loophole plan against offshore companies? Posted By: on November 4, 2010 at 1:45 am People are making the claim that companies will have to leave the country if we impose tax penalties on them for sending our jobs overseas. That is absolutely not how this works. If a company sends our jobs overseas, which is generally for cheaper labor, if we penalize them for doing so, then they will not have a financial incentive for going overseas. If, however, those same companies decide to leave our country due to those tax penalties, then they will lose their main market, the U.S. How is this not a perfect way to prevent companies from sending our jobs overseas? I concur. Close the loopholes, punish them if they send jobs overseas, rewards them for keeping them here, and impose stiff tariffs if they want to enter our lucrative market to sell their stuff, which they need. What's to prevent them from just doing that now? Moving to another country? Surely the benefit of doing business in a country with low taxes and cheap labor would more than offset their tax loopholes.

I found my post - here it is: Well here it is from the New York Times: Published: November 3, 2010 The PowerPoint slides presented to House Republicans in January 2009 seemed incongruously optimistic at a time when the very word “hope” belonged to the newly ascendant Democrats and their incoming president, Barack Obama. “If the goal of the majority is to govern, what is the purpose of the minority?” one slide asked. “The purpose of the minority,” came the answer, “is to become the majority.” The presentation was the product of a strategy session held 11 days before Mr. Obama’s inauguration, when top Republican leaders in the House of Representatives began devising an early blueprint for what they would accomplish in Tuesday’s election: their comeback. So, there was no spirit of working together, of helping the economy on the brink of destruction, of working to help build America. None of that. Their first order of business was to find out how to unseat Obama and the democrats. This post has been edited by Cleo's Mom: 04 November 2010 - 11:42 AM I am not going to split hairs on the syntax they used. By saying you want to unseat Obama and the democrats that means that you can't support anything they propose lest they be given the credit for success. So the republicans opposed everything Obama proposed even BEFORE he was inaugurated and proposed anything. Their mind was made up at least 11 days before the swearing in. By being laser focused on becoming the majority, they weren't focused on the nation's problems. So, as far as I'm concerned that translates into wanting Obama and America to fail.