You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom

Community colleges are tax funded. Hmmmmmmm! Somebody else is paying for your kids college. Geeeshhh!

If they went to public elementary and high school someone else paid. If they used public recreation, somone else paid. How come its okay for subsidy for the ones you use but not for the children of the extremely poor? Yep, and I bet your kids making $8 and hour didn't accept any government loans or pell grants to get through school. Of course they could make it on $8 and hour paying $400 per month rent and pay tuition even at a community college or trades school. Right!

Pattygreen: This is not my quote and I don't know why you can't keep things straight. Not that I disagree with the quote, I don't, but you should give credit to the correct poster.

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.

quote by Pattygreen:

That's because it was in the HC public option. When Obama wanted to have the gov. run HC, his plan was to get everyone on this gov. ins. eventually over time. Everyone knows this and I'm not going to go over it again. If everyone were to be on the govs. ins. plan, then they would be the ones running the show at that time.

None of this is true. And you keep saying it believing that axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.

Show me ONE thing since August 2009 on (when the real debate of the healthcare took place) that indicates that the public option would have "death panels" and that the purpose was to have everyone go on the public option so that the government could control it all.

I will not accept opinions, I want facts: quote the parts of the bill that support it. Don't quote someone from the party of no.

Edited January 29, 201016 yr by Cleo's Mom

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.

BJean

I agree with you whole heartedly about a woman's right to have a child. I stand firm, that is her right. I believe the Brinkerhoff quote is right on point. I believe that rape or incest or danger to her own life are among the circumstances she considered.

I don't believe most women want to abort even in those circumstances, I think when they do they are indeed "driven." I was faced with scary health circumstances when pregnant and was advised to abort, I could not and did not and had a fine healthy girl. I was lucky, I had a good outcome, but if my daughter or my grand daughter were faced with that same circumstance I would not push them to make the same decision. I was the only one who had the right to make it and I did without discussing it with family or friends. It was a given.

quote by pattygreen:

What is stupid to me is that you seem to think that the government will provide a program that wont cost you or the American people anything or will actually 'save' us money:lol:!

File this under: Ignore the facts when they don't support your point of view. I've said it over and over again.

The CBO, and independent agency, has shown how the healthcare bill would reduce the deficit. But of course you would only believe them if they said the opposite.

Edited January 29, 201016 yr by Cleo's Mom

Here's an analysis from the INDEPENDENT CBO of the REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE PLAN (if we can call it that):

Here's what the CBO said about the Republican bill back in November when they released it, courtesy the Speaker's blog.

COVERING MORE AMERICANS?

The House Republican bill covers just 3 million more Americans. Today, 83% of nonelderly Americans are insured – under the GOP plan, only 83% of nonelderly Americans would be insured in 2019.

No change.

......

INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS?

The House Republican bill does not reduce the number of people who must buy insurance on the individual market – because they’re self-employed, don’t have coverage from their employer, are lose their jobs. This segment of the market now pays the highest premiums and consumer abuses by the insurance companies.

No change.

.....

HOLDING INSURANCE COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE & COVERING PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS?

The House Republican bill fails to require insurance companies to end the practice of discriminating against Americans with pre-existing medical conditions.

No change.

The House Republican bill does not repeal anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies.

No change.

The House Republican bill does not include provisions to stop price gouging by insurance companies.

No change.

For the visual learners among us, here it is in graphic form:

The Republican plan, will bring down the deficit, some. Just not nearly as much as the House Dem's plan. Looks like it's back to the drawing board for Boehner and pals. Except of course that they don't want comprehensive healthcare or insurance reform.

Here's an analysis from the INDEPENDENT CBO of the REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE PLAN (if we can call it that):

Here's what the CBO said about the Republican bill back in November when they released it, courtesy the Speaker's blog.

COVERING MORE AMERICANS?

The House Republican bill covers just 3 million more Americans. Today, 83% of nonelderly Americans are insured – under the GOP plan, only 83% of nonelderly Americans would be insured in 2019.

No change.

......

INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS?

The House Republican bill does not reduce the number of people who must buy insurance on the individual market – because they’re self-employed, don’t have coverage from their employer, are lose their jobs. This segment of the market now pays the highest premiums and consumer abuses by the insurance companies.

No change.

.....

HOLDING INSURANCE COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE & COVERING PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS?

The House Republican bill fails to require insurance companies to end the practice of discriminating against Americans with pre-existing medical conditions.

No change.

The House Republican bill does not repeal anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies.

No change.

The House Republican bill does not include provisions to stop price gouging by insurance companies.

No change.

For the visual learners among us, here it is in graphic form:

The Republican plan, will bring down the deficit, some. Just not nearly as much as the House Dem's plan. Looks like it's back to the drawing board for Boehner and pals. Except of course that they don't want comprehensive healthcare or insurance reform.

Cleo's mom I love your political astuteness. You go for the facts and you know where to find them. Keep it up.

Corliss

Cleo's mom I love your political astuteness. You go for the facts and you know where to find them. Keep it up.

Thanks. But of course you've noticed that the conservative right doesn't believe in facts that don't support their position. So they have to resort to lies, distortions, fear, hate and emotional rants. And quoting the bible.

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.

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.

EXACTLY, BJEAN!! This is what I have been saying. The republicans and the tea party movement are not interested in helping solve american's problems, they are just interested in hating Obama, opposing his agenda and hoping to get more republicans elected to push THEIR agenda - which we all saw how well that worked under bush. Their agenda is what got us in the mess we're in.

The teabaggers CLAIM to be anti-wall street and the bail out. They claim to be about jobs, etc.. They claim to be just grassroots, middle america... Well, let's see if they take to the streets to support the tax on the big banks to get them to pay back all the bailout money (and no, they can't pass this on to us because they would have to pass it on to smaller banks and they aren't permitted- so they would be in a corner - yeah!)

And let's see if they take to the streets to support the jobs bill that will be funded with part of the bailout money that has been paid back.. What average american could be against that, right?

I called both my US Senators today and also Harry Reid's office and here was my message:

-forget bipartisanship - the republicans aren't going to agree to anything.

-forget the message of hope, change and yes we can.

-new message: just do it

Pass the financial reform bill, pass the jobs bill, pass healthcare reform and use whatever procedural path you have and JUST DO IT. And if the republicans filibuster, then put them on TV. Now, that's transparency I can believe in!!!

Cleo's mom I love your political astuteness. You go for the facts and you know where to find them. Keep it up.

Thanks. But of course you've noticed that the conservative right doesn't believe in facts that don't support their position. So they have to resort to lies, distortions, fear, hate and emotional rants. And quoting the bible.

Of course. I believe their stand is "don't bother me with the truth." They don't want to hear it. I keep hoping that somewhere someone might be open minded enough to listen and learn. There is also the outside possibility that those who are undecided could be viewing this.

I also believe in the karmic value of speaking the truth.

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!!!!

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

It may say posted by pattygreen, but it was Cleo'smom's post.

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

Oh, I understand it, but it just doesn't happen with the government.

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?

Guns don't kill anyone. People kill.

There is no debate going on in this country over whether drugs should be legalized or not. The vast majority of people agree that they should be. Guns, OTOH, is of debate and the people want their freedom to own them.