I am probably going to open a whole new can worms here. I might regret opening later, but some of the topics being discussed really got me thinking about things. One of the things said that really kind of got me going on this was:

Pattygreen: Christians (usually conservative republicans) for the most part try to live moral, virtuous, nonsinful lives.

I am not a Christian and I live a moral, virtuous, and for the most part nonsinful life. I know several people who live the same, and are not Christian, and have conservative beliefs.

Cleo's Mom: First of all, "conservative republican" is redundant, because they are all conservative. I don't think there are any moderate republicans left particularly among those elected to office.

However, I just wonder if it is MORAL to mislead or outright lie, because listen to what these conservative republicans have said:

Dana Perino said on Fox: We did not have a domestic attack during bush's administration.

A month later Mary Matalin said: bush inherited 9/11 from Clinton.

Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani said that we never had a domestic attack under bush but we had one under Obama.

Now, I ask you - do these people think the American public is really that stupid? Apparently. Those on the right just make things up and keep repeating it. And when they repeat it often enough eventually some people begin to believe it.

They reduce things to some emotional, hate filled sound bite: death panels, obamacare, socialism, hitler, nazi.

This is because they are unable to engage in meaningful, intelligent, fact-based discussions. Maybe they don't want to do that because they don't have the facts on their side.

First I am a moderate Republican. I do tend to lean a little more to the right, but on some issues I lean to the left. Some things I can lean pretty right, and others I lean pretty far left. It really depends on the issue. I'd like to think that would make me moderate. I know many people who are moderate Republicans also. So we are still out there. There are some politicians who are still moderate also.

Second just because you are a Republican does not mean that you can not have a intelligent, meaningful, fact-based conversation. That is like saying liberals have their heads in clouds and live in fantasy nerf world filled with rainbows and butterflies.

Both sides sling mud back and forth. Both sides have their hate filled idiots. Both sides have their good and bad points. Both sides LIE, LIE, and LIE some more.

I get so sick and tired of hearing about how the Republicans have screwed everything up...I mean really they did it all alone.....no help from the left at all???

I personally feel that if you lean too far left or right you can't have a very grip on reality, and when our politicans lean too far left or right it's not good for our country either way. I hope someday too see more moderate politicans in office.

A man who lacks judgment derides his neighbor, but a man of understanding holds his tongue. Proverbs 11:12

I don't see you holding your tongue. Or is it that only those who agree with you may speak?

I am only trying to help you with what God teaches. Does God's teaching not apply to you?

patty that's right up there with getting one's nightie in a knot over the president speaking to school children to encourage them to do well with their studies.

Geez. Whatever.

I don't see you holding your tongue. Or is it that only those who agree with you may speak?

The scripture quoted was: "A man who lacks judgment derides his neighbor, but a man of understanding holds his tongue. Proverbs 11:12"

You're doing the deriding here.

As usual you conveniently miss the point. You bring up agreeing with someone as being the necessity for speaking, according to the scripture. Are you being intentionally obtuse or is it that you just have no clue how to debate?

I am only trying to help you with what God teaches. Does God's teaching not apply to you?

All of God's teachings apply to me and I am grateful for them.

The scripture you posted for me says that a man who mocks others lacks judgement. Well then, I guess we ALL lack judgement on this forum.

Yea, Patty. So true..

Yeah, how true, how true.

Third graders running RNC insult own donors

by kos

Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 02:20:04 PM PST

Feel the respect.

The

Republican National Committee

plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign

capitalizing on “fear”

of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

Take a look at this slide:

It's a bit hard to read, but the box on the left is titled "visceral giving", which is mostly small dollar donors. Teabagger types. The box on the right is "calculated giving", which are those buying access.

For the former, the RNC calls them "reactionary", which is obviously an accurate description, but not the sort of thing you want your own party saying about you. For the latter, the RNC calls them egotists.

Then, it turns out the RNC is run by third graders. Here's slide #7:

The inmates truly do run their asylum.

The use of fear tactics and even insulting your own donors. Why am I not surprised by these RNC tactics. This is mainstream republicanism, not even one of their extremists groups - like the tea party.

Edited March 4, 201016 yr by Cleo's Mom

The party of no strikes again!! Quick, grab your children. Some family values. More hypocrisy.

House Republicans Support Restraint and Seclusion For Children

by BarbinMD

Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:25:23 AM PST

When 30 Senate Republicans voted to protect corporate-sponsored rape, it seemed that we had finally reached the nadir of the Party of No. But yesterday, House Republicans gave their senate cohorts a run for their scum-sucking money when they refused to support H.R. 4247, the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act.

The bill passed, but 153 House Republicans,(NEWS FLASH: ONLY 144 REPUBLICANS VOTED NO, AGAIN, THAT'S ONLY 144 - FEEL BETTER?) so intent on saying no to any legislation introduced by a Democrat, couldn't bring themselves to agree that children in school shouldn't be tied up, drugged, or isolated in order to discipline them.

This should serve as a reminder to anyone humming the Kumbaya, bipartisan song ... you cannot deal in any meaningful way with people who are hell-bent on saying no to anything and everything to further their political aims.

Edited March 4, 201016 yr by Cleo's Mom
Changed the number of the party of no who voted no.

The party of no strikes again!! Quick, grab your children. Some family values. More hypocrisy.

House Republicans Support Restraint and Seclusion For Children

by BarbinMD

Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:25:23 AM PST

When 30 Senate Republicans voted to protect corporate-sponsored rape, it seemed that we had finally reached the nadir of the Party of No. But yesterday, House Republicans gave their senate cohorts a run for their scum-sucking money when they refused to support H.R. 4247, the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act.

The bill passed, but 153 House Republicans, so intent on saying no to any legislation introduced by a Democrat, couldn't bring themselves to agree that children in school shouldn't be tied up, drugged, or isolated in order to discipline them.

This should serve as a reminder to anyone humming the Kumbaya, bipartisan song ... you cannot deal in any meaningful way with people who are hell-bent on saying no to anything and everything to further their political aims.

Here's a fun little idea for you; get your facts straight before you post them.

153 republicans did not vote no, if you took the time to read the entire story you would see that some of your beloved democrats voted no against this bill.

But you wouldn't want the truth to get in the way of a good story would you?

Yeah, shame on you Cleo's mom, ONLY 145 voted no, ONLY 145 Republicans couldn't bring themselves to agree that children in school shouldn't be tied up, drugged, or isolated in order to discipline them.

Yeah, shame on you Cleo's mom, ONLY 145 voted no, ONLY 145 Republicans couldn't bring themselves to agree that children in school shouldn't be tied up, drugged, or isolated in order to discipline them.

Aww look another ranting loon who didn't take the time to read:thumbdown:, either the vote count or the bill. Good for you! Just hop on CM's coattails and run with what she says, oh, here's an idea, read the bill. You'll see that maybe, just maybe, there's a little more to it.

Yeah, real radical stuff here.

H.R. 4247:

Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act

Primary Source

See H.R. 4247 on THOMAS for the official source of information on this bill or resolution.

Summaries

Congressional Research Service Summary

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress.

2/23/2010--Reported to House amended. Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act -

Section 5 -

Directs the Secretary of Education (Secretary) to establish minimum standards that: (1) prohibit elementary and secondary school personnel from managing any student by using any mechanical or chemical restraint, physical restraint or escort that restricts breathing, or aversive behavioral intervention that compromises student health and safety; (2) prohibit such personnel from using physical restraint or seclusion, unless such measures are required to eliminate an imminent danger of physical injury to the student or others and certain precautions are taken; (3) require states and local educational agencies (LEAs) to ensure that a sufficient number of school personnel receive state-approved crisis intervention training and certification in first aid and certain safe and effective student management techniques; (4) prohibit physical restraint or seclusion from being written into a student's education plan, individual safety plan, behavioral plan, or individual education program as a planned intervention; and (5) require schools to establish procedures to notify parents in a timely manner if physical restraint or seclusion is imposed on their child. Requires that when the physical restraint or seclusion of a student is required to eliminate an imminent danger of physical injury to such student or others, school personnel continuously monitor such student face-to-face or, if their safety is significantly compromised by such monitoring, remain in direct visual contact with the student. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that schools operated or funded by the Department of the Interior comply with such minimum standards.

Section 6 -

Requires states, within two years after the establishment of such standards and annually thereafter, to: (1) provide the Secretary with their plan for meeting the standards, including a mechanism to effectively monitor and enforce them; and (2) provide the Secretary and the public with certain information regarding incidents over the preceding academic year in which physical restraint or seclusion was used on a student. Directs the Secretary to enforce such requirements by withholding education funding from noncompliant states, requiring them to submit a corrective plan of action, or issuing a complaint to compel their compliance through a cease and desist order.

Section 7 -

Authorizes the Secretary to award three-year grants to states and, through them, competitive subgrants to LEAs to: (1) establish, implement, and enforce policies and procedures to meet such standards; (2) improve their capacity to collect and analyze data related to physical restraint and seclusion; and (3) implement school-wide positive behavior supports. Requires LEAs to allow private school personnel to participate, on an equitable basis, in activities supported by such grants and subgrants. Requires state grantees, at the close of the grant period, to evaluate and report to the Secretary on their progress in preventing and reducing physical restraint and seclusion in schools. Authorizes the Secretary to allocate funds to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out such activities with regard to schools operated or funded by the Department of the Interior.

Section 8 -

Directs the Secretary to conduct a national assessment of this Act's effectiveness and report the assessment's findings to Congress.

Section 9 -

Gives Protection and Advocacy Systems the authority provided under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 to investigate, monitor, and enforce this Act's protections for students.

Section 10 -

Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish standards for Head Start agencies that are consistent with the minimum standards for the management of elementary and secondary school students. Authorizes the Secretary to allocate funds to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to assist Head Start agencies in establishing, implementing, and enforcing policies and procedures to meet such standards.

Section 12 -

Authorizes appropriations for FY2011-FY2015.

Edited March 4, 201016 yr by Cleo's Mom

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll082.xml

Here is the official count. I am pretty sure that under Column Nays and under the row for Republican that number is 145.

Edited March 4, 201016 yr by LeighaMason
copy problem

Yeah, shame on you Cleo's mom, ONLY 145 voted no, ONLY 145 Republicans couldn't bring themselves to agree that children in school shouldn't be tied up, drugged, or isolated in order to discipline them.

I edited my post to make the change. Whew! Glad someone caught that mistake. ONLY 144 republicans voted no. Well, that's so much better.