Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Well at least the blame agenda is still alive in the liberal movement. sm

Posted By: Tara on 2007-12-29
In Reply to: Oh, but I can and I will. - piglet

Nice to see some things never change. 


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Switch fascist movement with
conservative movement and you have a winner for your very obtuse definition! All except the organic part. We liberals like to know where our food comes from whereas the conservatives don't really care as long as it's cheap and exploits poor farmers.
Nope, but that's where the movement to bring it
It USED to be a private decision. And even if you wackos manage to get Roe v Wade overturned, it will STILL be a private decision & procedure, and women and teenagers will still continue to obtain abortions, regardless of how much it is legislated against. The only difference will be in the safety of the procedure.

Clean hospital OR, or dimly-lit back-alley? I've had friends nearly die from the former. I choose the latter.
Cindy re-energized the anti war movement
Well, guess we are looking at different news papers and news programs cause from what I have seen and read, most of the country is behind Cindy 100%.  In fact, it was her camping out in Tx that re-energized the anti war movement.  If she was a quack or clown which is what Rove called her (takes a clown to know a clown), she could not have possibly started the ending of the Iraq war..which is what she did, you know.  If you dont agree, I would suggest you study the ending of the Vietnam War.  Nixon refused at first but the roar of the majority got too loud.  As far as sacrificing a son.  She probably feels guilt cause she feels that way as any mother wants to protect her children and not send them into harms way.  So, if she had known he would die, she probably would have fought every which way to try to keep him out of the military.  In her mind the guilt trip is she sacrificed her son..she should have *protected* him.  I think that is what she feels.  Me?  I think when a child turns 18, they need to be on their own and make their own decisions..So, to me it would be the sons decision.
You mean ACORN is a grass roots movement? You mean
00
Don't blame Obama for the coins...blame the Franklin Mint!
The Franklin Mint has an entire series of presidential coins that are tacky and cheap looking just like everything else they manufacture.
Anti-choice movement gets duped in a Blogger Baby Hoax

The unmarried mother's story about giving birth to a child diagnosed as terminally ill in the womb hit a major nerve on the Internet.


Every night for the last two months, thousands of abortion opponents across the nation logged on to a blog run by the suburban Chicago woman who identified herself only as "B" or "April's Mom."


People said they prayed that God would save her pregnancy. They e-mailed her photos of their children dressed in pink, bought campaign T-shirts, shared tales of personal heartache and redemption, and sent letters and gifts to an Oak Lawn P.O. box in support.


As more and more people were drawn to her compelling tale, eager advertisers were lining up. And established parenting Web sites that oppose abortion were promoting her blog -- which included biblical quotes, anti-abortion messages and a soundtrack of inspirational Christian pop songs.


By Sunday night, when "April's Mom" claimed to have given birth to her "miracle baby" -- blogging that April Rose had survived a home birth only to die hours later -- her Web site had nearly a million hits.


There was only one problem with the unfolding tragedy: None of it was true.


Not the pregnancy, and not the photos posted on the blog of the supposed mother and Baby April Rose, swaddled in white blankets. The baby was actually a lifelike doll, which immediately raised the suspicion of loyal blog-followers.


"I have that exact doll in my house," said Elizabeth Russell, a dollmaker from Buffalo who had been following the blog. "As soon as I saw that picture, I knew it was a scam."
--
She had expected only a handful of friends to read it, but when her first post got 50 comments, she was hooked.


"I've always liked writing. It was addictive to find out I had a voice that people wanted to hear," Beushausen said.


"Soon I was getting 100,000 hits a week, and it just got out of hand," she said. "I didn't know how to stop. ... One lie led to another."


So the lie isn't the problem, but the fact that she got addicted to blogging made her continue on. What a sad and disgusting tale. Using a phony story to whip up the anti-choice movement is pretty vile. A woman has the right to choose in this country, but the religious right will do anything it can to try and take that right away. You never hear them talk about the mother in any of their debates. It's like the woman is only a "vessel" to carry a child and doesn't exist in any other manner. "Bring the vessel here." "How dare the vessel speak out."


Let's blame Clinton...Let's blame Obama.
The FACT is that Bush BECAME prez on 01/20/01.  He was told by Clinton to beware!!  It was Bush's duty to know, to care what was going on.... the FACT is he didn't give a rat's patooty!!!  FACT is he was on vacation most of his first 7 months in office.  The FACT is he stared into space for 7 minutes after being told America was under attack while kindergarteners were reading "MY PET GOAT."  I am so sick of the LIES you people want to ram down my throat.  And when Obama takes office, God-willing, I am positive he will be under a microscope like NO president has ever been as there is a different standard set for him and never has a president-elect undergone so much criticisizm BEFORE taking office. 
The so called liberal media is not so liberal anymore...sm
Case and point Fox News is the #1 media outlet via ratings and hardhitting conservative anchors, pundits, and journalists. Other than Hardball, I don't know of another mainstream show that puts the liberal point of view out there and checks this administration and their policies.
liberal hit piece by a liberal deep thinker....
x
First you say its alive like your cat is alive...
and then you say it is not alive. If it is not alive, why does it continue to grow? Do you think murder is wrong? If the baby survives abortion and is actually breathing it has a soul, right? So when Obama votes to let the infant die, he is condoning negligent homicide? Right?
The KKK is alive an well in the US...sm
Just on CNN, a woman was killed at a KKK initiation.  She was recruited on the internet.
They have the same agenda. The only thing different sm
about Democrats and Republicans are the issues, and the issues are what divide us. The issues cause arguments, which distract us - the old divide and conquer tactic better known as the false left right paradigm. The Bush and Clinton families are quite friendly, even vacation together.
I merely posted who they are and what their agenda is...
that is not attacking the messenger. That is presenting the other side. Why do you object to presenting the other side?
Behind the Obama Agenda....sm




http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/546-behind-the-obama-agenda
a bold agenda

and worthwhile getting started but I believe you have to be dead 100 days or 100 years to get a national holiday. Something about historic prespective or some such.


 


Radical Agenda...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/


 


 


Since you seem to know, just what is the "conservative agenda", please? sm
..and kindly provide references from the conservative sources themselves, not from liberal sources that are a little too prone to misinterpretations and mischaracterizations.

Thank you. I apologize in advance if this request imposes a burden on you to get your facts straight, but you'll be better informed for having made the effort.
I do not understand what the agenda
is when scientists around the world have already declared their findings do not support gore's. We are not doing anything to effect melting of ice caps on jupiter. The sun has just entered its new 11 year sun spot cycle with the peak about halfway through and as a ham operator I know what this does to communications. why is this myth persisting. what a bunch of youknowwhat. take the old nursery rhyme of "black sheep, black sheep have you any wool" and change it to black sheep, black sheep, have you any bull. yes sir, yes sir, 3 bags full". and before anyone even goes there, I have heard that in my mind for years and it has nothing to do with O. I do have a question for someone: On my phone bill since I came up to stay with Mother, I am being charged $5 a month for NOT using long distance. This is now taxed city, state and federal. Does this seem legal?
Man alive.....there's no winning!
Now it's the republicans fault the bailout went through. Now, if they had held firm and NOT voted for it, and things continued to look bad for a while, you would have blamed them for NOT voting for the handout.

You just can't make up your mind.
alive, maybe, but no soul
I don't believe the fetus has a soul regardless of whether it moves or not. My cat moves too and I love her, but I don't fool myself into thinking she is a spiritual being. I have 2 children and yes it was exciting to feel them move, but honestly, it is just not the same for most Jews. We don't have baby showers, buy things for babies, decorate the room, etc. until after the birth when the child becomes "alive."


Hey - did you know that old bird is still alive?
seriously, she's like 96.  I bet she gets really offended when she hears people saying that her son is too old to be president or that he'll croak while he's in office.  I just assumed she was dead.  Learn something new everyday!
Of course racism is alive and well...sm
One explanation, and I know many people who did this....people wanted to be able to say that they voted in the first black man into the white house. And that is all well and good, but they did it only to be able to say they voted him in. Period.

Obama is long on style, short on substance....and extremely short on experience.

We've elected someone who's about to get on the job training.




I didn't even know she was still alive!! nm
x
Liberalism is alive and well
That's what I find so astounding. I go to blog sites and read intelligent, well-written critiques of seeded news articles - here, I am appalled by the lack of research and blatant racism wrapped in the American flag and flogged with the bible.
I'd appreciate it if you would leave my daughter out of your agenda.

I mentioned nothing of her political opinions or what she "thinks." I merely said I baby-sit for her occasionally and use her computer.  for you to try to drag her into your accusations is typical of what I have seen happen on the other board.  It's inflammatory and untrue, but it's how you people seem to create your "facts." I can assure you that my daughter has her own political opinions, and she and I don't always agree, unlike you, but we at least respect each other's right to their opinion and often have respectable, interesting, informative debates with each other.  She was taught respect and learned it very well. You can't hold a candle to the intelligent, respectful young lady that she is, so don't even try because you're way out of your league. As far as going back to the conservative board, thanks, but no thanks. I've already explained my reasons for not going back there any more. People are much more respectful of differing opinions on this board.


My post to gt was simply to tell her that I understand what it's like to be accused of all sorts of things simply because you post on a board.  It happened to me on the conservative board on my first (and last) visit there, which is why I won't return.


Do I think some of the things gt said were over the top?  I sure do.  Do I understand why she said them?  My guess is that she was trying to communicate with you in the only way you seem to understand, since civil attempts don't seem to work with some of you people.  I think I can "understand" her motives, just like some of you "understand" why Eric Rudolph murdered innocent people. And between the two, I'd much rather try to "understand" gt than "Eric" (as he appears to be affectionately referred to elsewhere on this board).


Americans tired of GOP agenda.
From pensitoreview.com where full story can be read:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sen. Nelson: Americans Are Fed Up with GOP
Posted October 5th, 2005 at 10:06 am by Jon

Boston.com:

The nation has become fed up with Republican leadership and the United States can still free itself of foreign oil in 10 years if it focuses on alternative fuel like ethanol, Sen. Bill Nelson said Tuesday.

In a wide ranging interview with reporters, Nelson, D-Fla., cited Republicans’ intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, the skyrocketing federal budget deficits and the war in Iraq as reasons why public opinion is turning against the GOP.

“It started with Terri Schiavo,” Nelson said. “I think what you’re seeing is a reaction — that people are saying I have enough of this intolerance and trying to cram their agenda down the people’s throats. People are getting tired of that.

He also points to the White House not responding quickly enough when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans and Mississippi and failing to work with oil companies to reign in rising gas prices.

“I can’t tell you how many Republicans have come up to me and said ‘I am off the reservation because of the fiscal policies of this administration, spending so much money like a drunken sailor,’” Nelson said. “All of these things are coming home to roost.”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Better late than never, I guess - now all we have to do is get rid of those hackable electronic voting machines and we can do something constructive about it.
No, it's not an evil agenda...I agree...sm
And in a perfect world America would be 100% Christian and we all would believe and think the same way, but we don't. Along with bringing their faith, our leaders have to bring the wisdom on how to be a leader for 100% of the people, and that includes the 49% that didn't vote for him.

Go to Obama's web site to see his agenda. sm
There you will find very detailed solutions that he lays out for America.  Of course experience is a good thing, but the trouble is the longer a person is embedded in the political establishment the more entrenched they become in "business as usual." Business as usual has netted little in this country, especially regarding the middle class.  I can't say Obama is the magic bullet here, after all he too is a politician, but a little less entrenched, and maybe it's worth a shot to see if someone with a little less "insider experience" could start to turn the country in a different and better, direction.  What do we have to lose?
And LOUDLY indicative of O's agenda! nm
nm
I see the double standard is alive and well....
I see.
yes, about killing humans that are ALIVE
Not unborn ones...
Fairness Doctrine is Alive and Well

DH told me it's in our paper today, that Schumer is promoting it, but I couldn't find anything on line.


I did find a few articles and the one posted below is the most recent (by Sen. Inhofe) that I could find:


http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93765


Freedom agenda in the Middle East?

Did Bush campaign promising a freedom agenda in the Middle East?  I must have missed that during the debates.  In fact, he specifically said he was against nation building when he debated Gore, although in all fairness, he didn't say he was against nation wrecking.


I guess he doesn't understand that the decider created more suiciders than he got rid of.


I can't wait to see how his base spins the long awaited truth from Bush's own lips that there were no WMDs and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.


May God help us all.


Bush had a personal agenda for this invasion.
Al queada is in 80 different countries, mostly Pakistan.

No, this is about the children. Because if we cannot get this country straightened out now, it could send the entire globe into a recession since it is a dollar based economy world wide for the most part. Imagine: Tube socks at Wal-Mart costing 55.00 rather than 5.99. Imagine, a dollar having the value of a nickel.
Imagine empty store shelves. This is what is at stake.

You need to read more books from both sides. Tune into all stations. I force myself to listen to Bill O'really and Rush ::gags:: when major events take place just to see what their perception of events are.

There really is two Americas and you and I, we live in the same one. McCain doesn't consider a person rich unless they have 5 million dollars - doesn't that say something?

did you watch the 9-11 coverage on national geo? Did you see the errors made prior to the attacks and during the attacks? It was due to an unsophisticated system which the military used. Two fighter jets were out over the Atlantic ocean while the 2nd jet flew into the 2nd tower. "We were confused" "fog of war" how many lives that would have saved.

No, militarily the U.S. is weak and just about every general has said this that wasn't hand picked by Bush as a puppet. And have you heard: Iraq has a 63 billion dollar surplus but is not paying back the U.S. because "they destroyed the country." What????

Beating a dead horse. I can hear you now.

There are even wealthy democrats who would like to see McCain win - for the tax cuts. I am very suspicious the delegates who voted for Obama may have considered that. Even Keith Obermann, who actually read Obama's speech minutes before he hit the stage, ruining the ability for the audience to experience a thoughtful speech. He read it off like it was a lunch menu. And he is supposed to be a liberal democrat.

When the rich are against the poor, a country ends up corrupt. And that is what McCain is representing, the wealthy class.

Republicans = the rich and the fools.
What exactly was President Bush's agenda for locking them up?

Somebody has to pay for 9/11.  Somebody has to pay for the USS Cole.  The right people are locked up.  Excuse me for not crying about their civil rights or worrying about how they are interrogated.  National security is why President Bush locked those terrorists up, national security and justice. 


And I do have a grip -- a firm grip on reality.  I don't live in Obama-land.


Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts

by: Joe Brewer, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


photo
The way that taxation is viewed by the public has a lot to do with the way politicians frame the debate. (Artwork: inventions-guide.com)



    Something as simple as a metaphor can mean the difference between shared prosperity and widespread suffering.

    It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that "tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.

    We've heard over and over again that the source of society's problems is the government. The solution that follows is to "trim the fat," "cut out the waste," "shrink the government" and provide "relief" to millions of citizens who suffer the burden of exploitation by Washington elites. This story flies in the face of the facts, yet it makes sense to a significant portion of the US population. How can this be?

    The answer has to do with how we make sense of things in the world. Our experiences shape what seems legitimate by reinforcing (or undermining) our ideas about the way things work. So, for example, a progressive politician may speak honestly and forcefully about the positive role of government in our lives. But this will fall on deaf ears if our typical experience is at odds with such claims. This observation demonstrates a key element of what George Lakoff and I have dubbed the Cognitive Criterion for Public Support:

    An effective policy must be popular if it is to stand the test of time and it must be popular for the right reasons, namely because it promotes the right long-term values in the minds of citizens, reinforced through the lived experience.

    The reason many people accept conservative claims about taxation and government is that they hold up for many common experiences, especially when conservatives are in control of the government. Conservative officials enact policies that make life worse for people while claiming that things will get better. Then they draw upon these negative experiences to advance their agenda. No Child Left Behind is an excellent example. The strategy works like this (a more detailed analysis can be found here):

1. Declare that the agenda is to "improve" public education.


2. Pass legislation that cripples public schools.

3. Cry out for "reform" when people see how bad our schools are doing.

4. Get rid of public schools and replace them with private schools, especially schools that teach conservative ideology (e.g. elite charter schools, religious schools, etc.).


    This strategy demonstrates how *cognitive policy* works. Emphasis is given to how people understand what is happening. The goal is to ensure that our experiences are interpreted through a conservative lens. It is not literally the case that taxation is a burden (a provocative metaphor), but rather that our common sense is influenced by a combination of our experiences in the world and the interpretive filters that give them meaning. (A key feature of how the political mind works, as I discuss in The Great Political Blind Spot.)

    Back to the hidden agenda behind tax cuts; we can apply this insight to see that conservatives *want* people to have negative experiences with government. Why? Because it supports decades of propaganda - and an underlying belief that stems from their worldview - that government is the problem. In the early 1970's, conservative elites started investing heavily in the creation of idea factories to spread their views far and wide so that they eventually became the new common sense of our culture. They had to work tirelessly for years to change the underlying values of American citizens because our long history has been devoted to advancing our most cherished values, which happen to be progressive. But, as we can see by the pervasiveness of their ideas today, this effort has been catastrophically successful.

    Now is the time to nip their bankrupt idea about taxation in the bud. The way to do it is simple. Take their reasoning to its logical conclusion and see what happens if it is applied to the real world. We can test the conservative belief about taxation against our own and decide what's best by looking at the outcomes.

    First, we'll need to be very clear about just what conservatives and progressives mean by taxation. Then we can apply these understandings to the world to see their consequences. (The insights that follow come from linguistic analysis of cognitive "frames" that shape political thought.)

    Taxation as Conservatives Understand It

    I've already alluded to an interesting metaphor that helps make sense of conservative thought about taxes, which I'll call Taxes Are a Burden to make it explicit. The understanding of taxation that follows from this metaphor can be seen in this story:

    Hard-working Americans are in need of some tax relief. Years of mismanagement by tax-and-spend liberals have taken money out of the hands of working people and put it into bloated government programs that serve special interests. We need to cut taxes, return fiscal responsibility to government, and put money back in the hands of taxpayers who know best how to spend it.

    This perspective is grounded in two beliefs: (1) The world is comprised of individuals; and (2) People are inherently bad and must learn right from wrong through self-discipline. I like to call this the "Me First" perspective because it assumes that people must help themselves before thinking about others. It can be summarized with the declaration, "You're on your own!" The Me First perspective assumes that any assistance from the community would be "coddling" or "spoiling" us. This claim is asserted as truth in the conservative worldview.

    Taxation as Progressives Understand It

    Progressives have a different understanding of taxation that can be expressed through a variety of metaphors: Taxes Are an Investment, Taxes Are Membership Dues, Taxes Are Pathways to Opportunity, Taxes Are Infrastructure and Taxes Are a Duty. (Read more about progressive taxation in "Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths") Reasoning that emerges with these metaphors can be seen in this progressive story:

    Our great nation was founded on a promise of protection and opportunity. Through our shared wealth, pooled together by taxation with representation, we have invested in the public infrastructure that makes possible the creation of new wealth. We have a sacred trust to keep this promise alive throughout our lifetimes, expand it as we are able, and pass it along to our children.

    This perspective is grounded in the beliefs that (1) Individuals are influenced significantly by our communities; and (2) People are inherently good and benefit from cooperation with others. I like to call this the "People First" perspective because it assumes that people must help each other in order to enhance their ability to help themselves. It can be summarized with the declaration, "We're all in this together!" The People First perspective assumes that we are greater than the sum of our parts and that new opportunities emerge when we make wise investments with the common wealth we share.

    Truth and Consequences

    Now that we have a clear sense of what taxation means to conservatives and progressives, we can see what happens if these different ideas are used as governing principles for shaping society. This analysis accomplishes two purposes. First, it reveals key truths about taxation that complicate arguments made by conservatives, truths that don't get talked about nearly enough. And second, it exposes a covert agenda that deceptively exploits real concerns of people to advance an otherwise unpopular agenda.

    What happens if the Me First perspective is applied to taxation? Just look to the world we find ourselves in today. A problem defined as "too much spending" leads to budget cuts. This results in a diminished capacity to provide vital services. Public goods like education, civil and criminal courts, road maintenance and fundamental scientific research are too costly for individuals - or even multinational corporations - to afford. So these services are cut and people lose their jobs. Thousands of teachers no longer cultivating young minds. Countless construction workers laid off when city and state governments halt infrastructure projects. Graduates with advanced degrees unable to find work because public agencies are "tightening their belts" and cutting back on grants to academia, nonprofits and the private sector.

    Beyond the direct human suffering of disrupted lives, there is substantial reduction in government programs that protect the public against harm. The FDA cannot staff enough inspectors to keep toxic peanuts out of the food supply. The EPA lacks capacity to keep drinking water clean in cities and towns across the country. The SEC is unable to keep a watchful eye on runaway speculation and our economy spins wildly out of control. Bridges crumble and levies break because funds are in short supply.

    The consequence of conservative ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are forced to be "on their own" with no protection against serious threats and no assistance to get them beyond their current means. When disasters strike, there is widespread suffering and death because the tapestry of society - our precious safety net - has withered and decayed. Think I'm exaggerating? I'll just say one word - Katrina.

    And despite their claims to the contrary, conservative leaders want this to happen.

    Contrast this with the People First perspective. Again, we can let experience be our guide. A decade of rampant deregulation, perpetrated by a conservative mindset about the relationship between government and the economy, led to the great stock market crash of 1929. A visionary progressive leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, stepped in and vastly expanded a wide variety of public programs. The flood of revenues accompanying this expansion was enough to put millions of unemployed back to work. New programs that embody the spirit of progress emerged in the decades that followed. Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare and the FDIC are a few examples of the legacy this pooling of resources delivered to the American people.

    Along with this massive investment in societal infrastructure, Americans experienced tremendous growth of shared prosperity. For the first time in our history, an entire generation of children from working-class families moved up the economic ladder with college degrees in hand. Home ownership skyrocketed. Literacy rates went through the roof and new skills emerged to expand the capacity of markets. And two generations of people experienced the benefits of cooperation in their daily lives, codifying the ethic that we're all in it together as a bedrock of sound reason.

    I can attest to this from personal experience. Both of my parents came from working-class families. I was the first to get a college degree. Federal and state scholarships delivered me from the rural farm to the hallowed halls. And now society gets to benefit from the fruits of my labor as I work to transform our political system for the betterment of society. The cognitive policy of the People First perspective is a foundation of my identity in the world.

    The Hidden Agenda Exposed

    The progress of our nation is being held hostage by a malicious metaphor. Treating taxation as nothing more than a burden is tantamount to declaring that citizenship is nothing more than getting all you can for yourself … everyone else be damned. Conservative elites have undermined the responsibilities we have to one another to advance their agenda. They are fully committed to crafting the world in their image, as we've seen all too clearly these last eight years and throughout the current debate about economic recovery under the Obama administration.

    I say enough is enough. Let's call this tactic out for what it is. People are hurting in every corner of the land and they're looking for help where they haven't dared to look for quite some time - in the service of our representatives in the federal government. Conservatives will try to convince us that our hardships are caused by excessive government. The truth is that we are suffering under excessive conservative ideology of governance, which is a very different beast. They continue to claim that we can't get ahead because we're overtaxed. This claim is absurd!

    Not a single home foreclosure throughout this crisis has been caused by excessive taxation. The misfortune of illness in a dysfunctional health system has burdened people with horrendous debt. Where did this problem come from? Profit-driven health care created under the Nixon administration.

    Banks haven't failed catastrophically through oversized personal W-2 forms. Radical deregulation is the culprit. Who deregulated the market? Conservative ideologues from both political parties. (This is what the word "centrist" really means - conservatives who've infiltrated the Democratic Party.)

    Companies haven't been driven to huge layoffs because their tax burden is too high. They are victims of an unraveling market. What undermined the integrity of the global economy? An extremist philosophy of governance that is blind to the role of the regulatory frameworks that give stabilizing structure to our markets.

    What can we do to stop the conservative agenda? Call it out for what it is. When someone says, "People need tax relief," respond by letting them know that "We really need to invest in one another." Make it clear what the consequences of tax cuts really are - the destruction of our mechanisms for protecting and empowering one another. And let's stop taking their language for granted just because everyone is doing it. That logic didn't make much sense in middle school. It's all the more dangerous to follow as adults. Challenge the conservative meaning of taxation directly. Declare that we are decidedly NOT on our own. Point to the benefits we've taken for granted too long, things like education and schools and roads and courts.

    We mustn't stop with a critique of their ideas either. We need to fervently argue for our own. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts. A prosperous community is a place where neighbors pool their efforts for the greater good. Taxes provide resources for investments larger than anything we could build on our own. And these benefits create a space for new ideas to take hold and expand our wealth.

    Ideas matter. Words are important. We cannot afford to let a radical minority set the tone of public debate any longer. The time is ripe for moving beyond the era of misguided individualism. Let's take the momentum we've built in the last few years and place the United States back on a course that resonates with our deeply held values - caring for one another, expanding freedoms to the marginalized, and recognizing that our shared prosperity is at the core of our success as a nation.


They aren't pushing a "gay agenda"...(sm)
They're pushing TOLERANCE.....something you could obviously use a lessen in.
Nice 2 C fascism is alive and well in NeoCon USA.
Keep this up and the only thing Obama will have to do to win the election is keep breathing.
if the infant has been temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb
x
If it is moving and a heart is beating its alive.
Your denial does not change that.
atrocities? Burned alive with saline....
sliced and diced and sucked out of the one place you should be SAFEST? Having a needle stuck in your neck and your brain sucked out? And you want to talk atrocities?? Puleezzee. Yeah..that's certainly just YOU...it certainly isn't me.
Obama proganda is alive and well in the U.S. and abroad....sm
He can do no wrong....ever.
If my grandparents and great parents were alive
They would slap me upside the head and say "Snap out of it. When I was your age I had to walk to school in the snow without a coat and shoes up hill - both ways". My grandmother would then call me pannywaste (whatever that is but when someone was wimpy she'd call them that), and my other grandmother would call me wimpy, whoos, or other words like that.

Our grandparents went through a depression, a couple of wars. They went hungry and went without. My grandfather told me his family was so poor he didn't even have shoes to go to school in. He had to wait for his brother to outgrow his so he could inherit them. They went through worse than us and they survived and they didn't have any government office telling them how to get through it.

I wonder if this new website was part of the spendulous plan (is this where our tax money is going?).

When are people who have any power to be able to do anything going to say enough is enough, your all fired. When people are inept and destroying a country (oops, mean corporation), it's time to fire them. Not them them spend more years in the seats continuing to put the country in ruins.
If my grandparents and great parents were alive
They would slap me upside the head and say "Snap out of it. When I was your age I had to walk to school in the snow without a coat and shoes up hill - both ways". My grandmother would then call me pannywaste (whatever that is but when someone was wimpy she'd call them that), and my other grandmother would call me wimpy, whoos, or other words like that.

Our grandparents went through a depression, a couple of wars. They went hungry and went without. My grandfather told me his family was so poor he didn't even have shoes to go to school in. He had to wait for his brother to outgrow his so he could inherit them. They went through worse than us and they survived and they didn't have any government office telling them how to get through it.

I wonder if this new website was part of the spendulous plan (is this where our tax money is going?).

When are people who have any power to be able to do anything going to say enough is enough, your all fired. When people are inept and destroying a country (oops, mean corporation), it's time to fire them. Not them them spend more years in the seats continuing to put the country in ruins.
EPA slants analysis to favor Bush's agenda

Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis
Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'



By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08


The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.


The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.


The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.


Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.


The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.


EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.


EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.


Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.


But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.


The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.


© 2005 The Washington Post
Company

What I find wrong is that he's pushing his own ego-driven agenda
regardless of what anyone thinks. I think this is called FALSE reassurance.
Okay, but you didn't answer the question... What was Bush's agenda?
?
Yes, let's not forget the racism is alive and well today. Let's remember that...
when the media shows throngs of African-Americans rioting in the street.
I guess it is the idea that in the spirit of Christmas the NRA is pushing their agenda...sm
Is nothing sacred? And that goes beyond politics.

Santa with a gun. Right over baby Jesus. Insinuating that Muslims want to blow up Christianity. All in the name of being able to bear arms.

I can't name ONE act of terrorism in American history in the last 100 years that a citizen bearing arms would have saved ONE person from a terrorist.

A gun wouldn't have helped anyone in the trade center, can't take them on a plane so wouldn't have saved any of the passengers, Oklahoma bombing, nope a gunn wouldn't have helped those victims. Just another scare tactic, exploiting 9/11 to push their agenda that was here before waaaayyy before the fact.


The (Illinois) Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ207.107

Obama blocked the Born Alive Infant Protection Act....sm
He said there was a law on the books in Illinois to protect these babies. In this article, he says there was a bill federally that he *would have* voted for. He killed the bill in Illinois by sitting on it as head of the Health and Human Services Committee. Which is it, Obama?

Excerpted from CNS News: Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions...

...State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because the following language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."

In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.

A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill. Source - CNS News