BJean

loserbob, you're right Bush did not discuss anything with Democrats when he was in office. He didn't have to. Most of the time the Republicans dominated congress. So, unlike many of his predecessors, he didn't have to bother "reaching across the aisle" to accomplish whatever he wanted to. And on the few occasions he did speak to the entire assembly, he misspoke or misrepresented or outright lied. So Bush's administration operated a little differently than some of the previous administrations that had to work with the opposition party in order to get something done. And that's why we now have a Democratic president and congress.

He also tells us that we shouldn't speak about our beliefs loudly to others.

When I read patty's post I was determined to ask her who she was quoting. It is in very poor form to post something that you've lifted somewhere else and hold out to all the world that they are your words. Thanks for clearing it up for us, cleo's.

patty: "Did I say 'democrats'? I thought I said 'government'. " Yes in so many words, you did. Because the stuff you post is Republican rehtoric. You're as repetitive with the anti-Democrat crap as you are with saying the Bible is God's literal written word. But when Dubya was in office, you were all about everybody supporting him and his administration because he was, after all, our president and he was waging an important war in Iraq. Because if we didn't fight them over there we'd sure be fighting them over here. Never mind that using that logic, we're using our brave men and women in uniform as bait. But I digress. The point is that your arguments about government vs. anti-government have everything to do with who is in power. I know you want everyone to think that you're just anti-government period. But the transparency of your right wing extremism is all too apparent.

I'm kinda feeling sorry for patty... It's all these darned facts that keep making her look bad. No fair!

It needs to be on every channel. The American people deserve to see what they've elected in action.

patty: "But I thought we were talking about the past proposed HC bill." And why would we do that? Just to butt heads for the sake of butting heads? patty when claiming that health care without profit as the bottom line, is bad: "It is [bad] if the government is running it." Don't you realize how dumb that sounds? It seems to be proof positive that you're determined that anything that the Democrats endorse is bad. That's not only short-sighted, it is amazingly naive and/or just plain dumb. I'm pretty much a staunch Democrat but I would never say that the Republicans can't come up with a good health care plan or anything else. Republicans are people. And I have a certain amount of faith in all people. Even Republicans. Too bad the current Republicans don't have faith in anything but denouncing the Democrats in general and Obama specifically. We the people are being screwed royally by the self-serving Republican obstructionists. That's what's BAD!

Cleo's: The Republicans just got hood-winked royally. I do not look at it as hood-winking the Republicans. I look it as masterful strategy. The only way to get Republicans to engage in the legislative process instead of the ignorant obstructionist, self-serving behavior they have exhibited since the president was elected, is for the president to confront them and dissect each of their "complaints" point by point so that they have to respond to the truth instead of making up stories. Reagan was dealing with a lot of Democrats who didn't want to play Reagan ball when he took office. After a good bit of butting heads with no progress being made, he started meeting with them one-on-one or one-on-several at breakfasts at the White House. He convinced them, issue by issue, and many of them eventually played ball the Reagan way. If he had not been willing to do that, he would have spent his entire term of office like Jimmy Carter. That is, sitting in the White House griping about his detractors, telling everyone that they were wrong, but in the end not being able to get anything done.

123crod: well put! And for the record, I believe that God lives within you too.

Devana I have to agree with you about loss of hope for America. The Republicans have no longer chosen to participate in Congress as legislators and progressive partners with the president and Democrats. They have chosen the path of being obstructionists. They are angry that Obama is our president. They have locked arms and are doing all they can, both in congressional sessions and in the media, to keep anything moving forward that Obama and the Democrats see as improving the United States. Obstructionists. And I believe that Americans (south of your border) are getting well and truly fed up with it. Now whether they will or can do anything about it is what makes me worry that your term "devolution" may well apply to us.

People may wonder why I handle quotes the way I do. It's because I get so irritated when people quote somebody and then do not say who they're quoting, or attribute it to someone that didn't say it. Which has happened to me many times. It is incredibly wrong!!! And people can get in big trouble in the real world for doing it.

patty: "If you're one of those people who feel that if they owned a gun, they would use it in a wrong way, then you shouldn't own one. Just don't expect everyone else to throw theirs out cause you're paranoid." This is the second time you've called me paranoid. It was stupid the first time and is stupid this time. Paranoia has absolutely nothing to do with either of the arguments I made. I will not take the time to explain it to you though because I doubt if you will understand it then. You're all about on talk and short on listen.

I believe in karma too, Corliss. In the meantime, we need to lobby the television networks to televise any filibuster that the Republicans stage to block progress. Great point, Cleo's!!!!

This morning a commentator asked a prominant Republican about one of the President's proposals, which in fact, the Republicans had supported under Bush. He as the Senator whether he would support the President on it now. The man never did answer the question and bobbed and weaved every which way. George Stephanopolis asked the question more than once and yet the cool Republican refused to answer the question. We all know the reason. Even if they supported something when Bush was president, they will refuse to support it now because they are determined fight our President every step of the way. The Republicans have become obstructionists - pure and simple. They are not working to improve America. They're simply working their own agenda.

btieger: "We should not be polluting more than we have to but we also should not inconvenience the majority or slow technology by inventing an issue that doesn't exist or taking unneeded steps to prevent something that proves no immediate threat." Inconvenience is one thing, slowing technology quite another. I agree that not being able to plow a field because they've discovered a little titmouse nest that is endangered is just plain nuts. But where do you draw the line? Is a titmouse too insignificant to worry with but an albino white tiger big enough to care about? Who decides? And don't tell me PETA because they're nuts.

I know you buy into the age old NRA slogan, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But have you read the statistics on how many gun owners have their guns used on them? It is not unusual for a criminal to take the victim's gun away and shoot the victim with it. And there was the case in Florida (in my neighborhood) where a guy who worked a party at the clubhouse, left the job and wandered down the cart path of the golf course and got "lost." He stumbled up to the patio door of a private residence and started banging on the door and it was 3 a.m. The homeowner jumped out of bed, grabbed his gun and eased his way into the family room. The guy, who couldn't speak English, was yelling and banging on the glass door and the homeowner yelled for him to go away! The guy yelled louder and started kicking the glass door. The homeowner told him, "I have a gun!" and the guy just nodded his head and yelled and banged on the door harder. So the homeowner shot him through the glass. He felt his family's and his life was threatened, for sure. The foreign speaking guy survived the gunshot (to his leg) and lawyered up. He had a lawyer before he got out of the hospital. You can guess the rest. It wasn't a happy outcome for the homeowner. The guy claimed he was yelling that he was lost and just wanted to use the phone. And the authorities believed him. They said that since there was a barrier between him and the homeowner, that the homeowner was wrong for shooting him. Yeah, guns don't kill people. People kill people. And they do it a whole lot faster and better with guns.

patty said: "If a drug abuser dies from his drug use, what are we to do? Legalize drugs so he could get them freely and be safe? NO! drugs are a detriment to society and should not be legalized! I'd wager that guns kill more people annually than drugs, but you want everybody to own guns. And most people don't kill somebody else when they shoot up drugs. When someone shoots a gun they, very often, are killing someone else. Using your logic, if drugs should be outlawed, why not guns?

SpaceyCasey: "I am pro-life and would have a baby if I were raped b/c I believe it is life. However, I do not hold it against my friends who have had abortions, and 4 of my very close friends have had them. Thankfully I had a man to marry and hold fast to when we got pregnant. And I would fight anyone to keep them from forcing you to have an abortion. Have you thought about what it would be like for you, with your beliefs on abortion, for our government to tell you if you became pregnant, that you had to have an abortion? This is not something I dreamed up. It has actually happened in another country - a country so large that it couldn't feed everyone. What if we got to the point in the U.S. that we couldn't support or feed people and the government decreed that people could only have one child - and that if you became pregnant with another child, the law required you to have an abortion? It is for reasons like this that I believe that the government should not be given that kind of power over women, either way. Having babies is too important to us, to our civil liberties, to our freedom and to the very core of our beings, for the government to decide for us, what we must do when it comes to having babies. Mattie Brinkerhoff in 1869: "When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."" And I agree with this quote to a certain extent - that we as a people have not made it easy for women to have children and ensure that they will be able to feed, clothe and educate their children. But there are times when a pregnancy threatens the life of the woman and even though I do not like the idea of abortion, I do believe that women should be able to protect their own lives when they are threatened.

patty you're telling us that you honestly don't understand how a new way of doing something could save money?

What seems stupid to me is that you're debating yourself. What's up with that?

I think people don't want to believe anything if it means they'll have to change their lifestyle. We should get a conscience about how we live. I don't for one minute think that we're all going to perish because we contribute so much to mucking up the environment. But I do think we're stupid to "shit where we live" if you'll pardon the expression.

patty: "Your generalization of conservatives as blind and stupid is offensive. I consider myself as an intelligent, well informed person. The liberal stand in the media as well as with others I talk to is very demeaning towards those who hold to the right. To insult us and to act as though you are mightier and superior in intelligence is a sign of the parties true lack of self esteem. Obma does it. Pelosi and reid do it. The far left media is especially guilty of it. You don't see me going around calling liberals or democrats stupid and dumb and sstuck with their head in the sand now do you? Is there any wonder why the American people are turning their backs on the far left democratic party? Their intelligence has been insulted and they get the feeling that liberals think they have all the answers and will tell the right what's best for them as if they can't figure that out without them." It is understandable that right wing extremists get riled when someone calls them names. But the right wing extremists have brought it on themselves by the games they play. Glenn Beck crying on his program, wailing and saying things that when he is confronted dead on about the content of his diatribe, he admits he's no journalist and he's just an entertainer and he looks like an idiot. When Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson say things like the Haitian people brought the earthquake on themselves, they look like total idiots. When a group gets together to demonstrate as "tea partiers" and then publish photos of it on their network and the photos turn out to be bogus, they look like idiots. I could go on but I think you get the idea. P.S. I don't think the American people are turning their backs on progressives, I think that the American people are finally getting wise to the right wing extremist political games. I guess it all depends on where you're sitting as to what your view is of things and people in America.

patty: "Government intrusion takes away your freedoms and liberties. Too much of it is an infringement on the people and their rights." Agreed. And that's one reason why the government needs to keep its' filthy paws off women's reproductive organs.

cleo's: "Every law abiding citizen is just one gunshot away from being a criminal." Or the victim of a criminal.

Yeah, you gonna believe the scientists or your lyin' eyes?